The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 131,50,000 per annum from September 11, 2017 to December 20, 2017, and the following.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the payment obligation of construction cost Gap.

① On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant KRW 148,50,000 for construction cost (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) among the construction works of the new building in Gwangju-si B, and KRW 236,50,000 for the steel panel construction works among the construction works of the new building in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, respectively.

② The Plaintiff completed each of the instant construction works.

The Defendant agreed to pay all the construction cost by September 10, 2017, and up to now, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 253,500,000 among the total construction cost of KRW 385,00,000.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 131,50,000 (=385,000,000 - KRW 253,500,000) and damages for delay calculated by applying each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 11, 2017 to December 20, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from September 11, 2017, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, since the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice, there is no obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax out of the

Where the contractor agrees to pay the value-added tax when concluding the construction contract, the contractor may request the contractor to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax in accordance with the contract, and whether to issue the contractor's tax invoice or pay the value-added tax shall not affect the contractor's obligation to pay

(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Da48930, 48947 Decided March 28, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da214691, 214707 Decided October 29, 2015). As seen earlier, the Defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to value-added tax to the Plaintiff by setting the amount including value-added tax as the construction cost upon entering into each of the instant construction contracts as the construction cost. As such, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is the Plaintiff.