Of the judgment of the first instance, the part ordering the following payment with respect to the conjunctive claim against Defendant B.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost as the primary claim against the Defendants, and the conjunctive claim for damages due to a tort. The first instance court dismissed all the aforementioned primary and conjunctive claims.

Since the plaintiff appealed only for the conjunctive claim, the trial scope of this court is limited to the conjunctive claim(s). However, the defendant's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter "subcontract Act") is limited to the conjunctive claim(s).

2) The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim 1) was that the Defendants determined construction cost with the exception of value-added tax at the time of entering into the instant construction contract is because the Plaintiff’s claim did not sufficiently confirm whether the Plaintiff constitutes a service subject to value-added tax exemption, and the Plaintiff was deemed to constitute an intentional or negligent act with respect to the Plaintiff. This constitutes a tort by intention or negligence. The Plaintiff suffered damages from the Defendants’ aforementioned tort, as seen above, including value-added tax 22,653,060 on July 31, 2017 and corporate income 20,805,60,660 won. Accordingly, the Defendants, a joint tortfeasor, jointly, are liable to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 43,458,660 and delay damages amounting to KRW 43,458,660 on July 31, 2017 (Ga). 2).