1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part of the basic facts is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of awarding the instant construction project, the Defendant agreed not to receive value-added tax on the Plaintiff and construction cost, etc. in order to reduce the construction cost, with the knowledge that the Plaintiff cannot receive value-added tax (29,700,000 won) with respect to the portion (hereinafter “construction cost, etc.”) excluding the steel bars and ready-mixeds price (hereinafter “construction cost, etc.”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a contract as if the instant construction was directly managed (the Defendant was the contractor and the Plaintiff was the construction agent) rather than the contract.

C. Therefore, the agreement on value-added tax of the above construction cost is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order. The defendant gains a benefit of not paying KRW 29,700,000 without any legal ground (the ground of the above invalid agreement) and thereby causes damage equivalent to the amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 29,70,000 to the plaintiff with the return of unjust enrichment.

3. The agreement that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the value-added tax on the construction cost, etc. during the instant construction to reduce the construction cost cannot be deemed null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da35540, 3557 delivered on December 22, 1992, etc.). Even if not, the losses claimed by the Plaintiff are based on the proviso that the tax authority established in the process of examining data related to the transfer income tax reported by the Defendant after the above agreement, it imposed a tax on the Plaintiff, who is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Plaintiff incurred by the Plaintiff’s performance of its obligations. Accordingly, the profits acquired by the Defendant (the profits exempted from the payment of value-added tax) under the above agreement.