1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,600,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 6% from July 17, 2018 to January 10, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for electrical construction (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the terms of construction period from March 28, 2016 to June 20, 2016 with respect to electrical construction among the Gyeonggi E-gun’s ground neighborhood living facilities and housing extension works (hereinafter “instant construction works”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the terms of construction period as KRW 35,200,00 (including value-added tax).

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 25,600,000,000, as the construction cost of the instant construction project on June 2, 2016, KRW 7,000,000 on September 13, 2016, and KRW 5,000,000 on October 6, 2016, and KRW 12,000,000 on October 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 9,600,000 (=35,200,000 - 25,600,000) and delay damages therefor.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay all the above amount because he did not issue a tax invoice for the above amount of KRW 9,600,000, etc., but as long as the amount equivalent to value-added tax is deemed to be separately paid under the contract in this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to value-added tax as stipulated in the contract in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da48930, 48947, Mar. 28, 1997); and on the ground that the tax invoice has not been issued

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

B. On November 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said additional construction cost to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant entrusted the instant additional construction work to the Plaintiff, which is equivalent to KRW 26,070,00 (including value-added tax). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said additional construction cost to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant’s statement in the evidence No. 3 alone is sufficient.