1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 712,793,329 as well as on November 2014.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The part concerning the overall defense from 5th to 5th 2th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth s

2. The portion after completion of the contract (However, even though the contractor received the amount of value-added tax from the contractor, it is only liable for compensation only if the contractor fails to obtain the deduction of the input tax due to the contractor's failure to prepare and deliver the tax invoice in a timely manner due to the contractor's fault. On the other hand, even though the contractor agreed to separately pay value-added tax, the contractor failed to prepare and deliver the tax invoice because the contractor did not pay the amount of value-added tax while paying part of the contract price to the contractor, and even if the contractor failed to receive the input tax, it is due to the contractor's fault that did not due to the contractor's fault but due to the contractor's fault that did not pay the amount of value-added tax. Therefore, the contractor is not liable for compensation for the damages which the contractor did not receive the input tax

3. Matters to be determined additionally.

A. The defendant's assertion that since the defendant deposited approximately KRW 250 million in the defendant's criminal case against N's representative director N related to the direct payment of the instant case, the above amount should be deducted from the unpaid construction cost claim.

(b) judgment;