The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 18,098,070.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a contract with the Plaintiff to supply and demand the construction sections for the apartment block C works for the Jeonbuk Innovation City (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) via a total of eight times (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant contract with the knowledge that the instant contract was a national housing construction service and was exempt from value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, with only the value of supply, excluding value-added tax, as the contract amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a tax invoice stating only the value of supply to the Defendant, and received construction payment from

C. However, around June 2018, the Plaintiff received a corrective order from the Jeonju Tax Office to demand the additional payment of value-added tax on the construction cost pursuant to the Plaintiff’s construction share ratio (9.5%). On June 21, 2018, the Plaintiff paid value-added tax amounting to KRW 18,098,070 (hereinafter “value-added tax”) on the Jeonju Tax Office’s Jeonju Tax Office (hereinafter “instant value-added tax”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. If the plaintiff and the defendant knew that the service of balcony expansion construction in this case is subject to value-added tax, the amount equivalent to value-added tax due to the above service would be included in the construction cost under each contract of this case.

However, the plaintiff's service of the balcony expansion project in this case from the Jeonju Tax Office is value added tax.