1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be stated in paragraphs 1 through 3.

1. Basic facts

A. In 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to construct a factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) on the ground of the emulsisib D (hereinafter “instant contract”) and completed the construction of A, B, C, and D, around August 2012, the Plaintiff completed each of the instant factory around 2012, and the Defendant completed each of the registration of initial ownership as to the instant factory around August 22, 2012.

B. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff issued, respectively, a tax invoice stating “178,042,00 won for supply, 17,804,200 won for total amount, 192,846,200 won for supply,” and on September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating “72,072,000 won for supply, and 720720 won for total amount, 79,279,200 won for supply,” respectively.

C. From April 3, 2012 to January 17, 2013, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 247,300,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction price under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to set up A, B, C, and D, and finally set the construction cost of KRW 250,762,00 (excluding value-added tax and the estimated amount of KRW 272,242,297, and KRW 20,000,000, which the Defendant decided to directly construct in the amount of KRW 272,125,40,000 (excluding the amount of KRW 247,30,000,000, which was already received by the Plaintiff). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff for the unpaid construction cost of KRW 24,825,40,00 (=272,125,400,000) out of the total tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in accordance with the above amount of KRW 272,125,30,00,000).

B. 1) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, 196,659,000 won for the first, Eul and Dong among the instant contract, and 66,084,580 won for E Dong (each value-added tax).