1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The scope of this court’s trial was that the Defendant received from the Defendant a supply of sewage outside the district of one section for the construction of housing site development project.

The Plaintiff paid value-added tax upon the Defendant’s demand, but the Plaintiff was notified by the head of the same Daegu Tax Office to additionally pay value-added tax (= principal tax) on the grounds that the amount of value-added tax was underreported for calculating the tax exemption ratio.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, if there was no error to the Defendant, sought the payment of the above value-added tax (1) as additional construction cost under the construction contract that had been interpreted by supplementing the intent that the Plaintiff would have concluded, and the first instance court accepted the principal tax and dismissed the penalty tax (2).

Since only the defendant appealed, the subject of the judgment of the party shall be limited to the principal portion.

2. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation a supply of housing site preparation work for the housing site development project for the housing site development project; and (b) subcontracted the Plaintiff with construction cost of KRW 905,441,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the one district of the housing site development project for the housing site development project; and (c) entered into an amendment agreement with the Plaintiff on June 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant amendment agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, issued a tax invoice for the portion of national housing construction on the premise that the value-added tax is exempted, and paid the value-added tax on the said portion on the premise that the value-added tax is exempted. However, the head of the tax office of Daegu reported under-value-added tax on the ground that the assessment of the tax exemption rate for the instant construction site was erroneous, thereby under-reported the Plaintiff’s principal tax amount of KRW 17,489.