1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 30,745,923 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The following facts are found to be in dispute between the parties or recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1:

A. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost as KRW 300,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the new construction work of the DNA ground neighborhood living facilities in Ansan-si.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

After the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the construction cost of KRW 39 billion, excluding value-added tax, and treated the said payment in full.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. In the instant construction contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax separately to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to separately pay the value-added tax while settling the construction cost, as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff value-added tax of KRW 30.9 million of the instant construction cost (=39 billion of the settled construction cost x 10%) and delay damages therefrom.

Although the Defendant asserts that there was no obligation to pay value-added tax on the ground that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice at the latest and caused damages for which the Defendant was unable to receive the refund of value-added tax, the Defendant asserts that there was no obligation to pay value-added tax. However, apart from the fact that the Defendant could seek damages for the above damages claimed by the Plaintiff (the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the compensation for the said damages under the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court Decision No. 2018Gada4962, and then won a favorable judgment, as seen thereafter, claimed a set-off against the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of the

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The Plaintiff is subject to the instant construction contract.