Of the part of the judgment below's failure, the part concerning construction profit and sales value-added tax shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that a “claim for the construction work of the contractor” that takes the short-term extinctive prescription of three years means a claim against the contractor for the construction work that the contractor has against the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da92, Apr. 18, 1963). Thus, the above provision cannot be applied to the claim for the settlement of accounts between the members of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79838, Feb. 28, 2013). Since a joint supply and demand company in the form of joint performance basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, a claim against a contractor due to the execution of construction works by a joint supply and demand company, in principle, belongs to the members of a joint supply and demand company, and barring any special circumstance, one of the members is entitled to claim payment according to the share ratio

However, the claim against the contractor in relation to the contract for construction work may be attributed to each member of the joint contractor in accordance with the ratio of shares, such as where the joint contractor and the subcontractor agree to acquire the right to the contractor directly according to the ratio of shares in relation to the claim arising from the contract for construction work. The above agreement may be made explicitly and implicitly.

In a contract for construction works between a joint contractor and a contractor, where an agreement has been made to have individual members of a joint contractor acquire the right to the contractor directly in accordance with the ratio of shares in the contract.