1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

[Supplementary part] Defendant B’s “Defendant C”, “Defendant C” or “C” shall be deemed to be “Codefendant C of the first instance trial,” and “D” shall be deemed to be “Codefendant D of the first instance trial.”

No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, "Where the plaintiff has actually paid value-added tax" shall be applied to "where the plaintiff has actually paid value-added tax or has received a notice of payment".

Nos. 6 and 13 of the first instance judgment " regardless of whether the plaintiff actually paid value-added tax" shall be applied to " regardless of whether the plaintiff actually paid value-added tax or received a notice of payment".

The following shall be added to Chapter 6, Chapter 14, of the first instance judgment:

“B. The Defendant asserts that the agreement on the construction cost of F building construction between the Defendant and the Co-Defendant D of the first instance court on July 17, 2015 agreed on the amount of the unpaid construction cost, including value-added tax, by stipulating that “The construction cost that has not been paid by the Defendant and the Co-Defendant D of the first instance court on the construction work of F building shall be determined as KRW 280,000,000.” However, as seen above, the said agreement was concluded after the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit claiming the payment of the construction cost under the instant Article 2 contract filed against the Defendant and Co-Defendant D of the first instance court against the Defendant. As such, the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for the value-added tax in this case was not claimed in the said lawsuit is without dispute between the parties. In light of these facts, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the unpaid construction cost including