1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. Judgment on the cause of the claim

A. The fact that the construction of this case caused the defects in the building of this case due to the defects in the building of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and according to the result of the appraisal by appraiser D of the first instance trial, it is recognized that appraiser D used 39,197,877 won (including value-added tax) to cover the repair cost for the defects in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the amount of value-added tax included in the defect repair expenses should be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount as the plaintiffs constitute a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act.

(A) If the contractor is entitled to deduct or be entitled to refund the value-added tax required for the repair of defects from his own output tax amount as the contractor subject to value-added tax in cases where the defect repair is required due to the defect in the contractor’s contract construction work, the contractor may not claim damages equivalent to the value-added tax against the contractor, unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39511 Decided April 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 92Da47328 Decided July 27, 1993, etc.). The plaintiffs constructed the building of this case for the purpose of using it as a public notice source, and after completion, the fact that the public notice source is operated by the building of this case does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the plaintiffs are liable to pay taxes under the Value-Added Tax Act.