1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.

1. The reasons for this Court regarding this case are as follows, even if the parties have considered both the complementary arguments and evidence in the trial of the court of first instance, the part to be added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument: All of the following reasons are without merit.

A. As to the assertion that a contracting party is F, not the Plaintiff: As long as the instrument is deemed to be authentic in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language stated in the instrument, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of its content.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482 Decided June 28, 2002, etc.). In this case, in full view of the following: (a) the standard subcontract agreement for construction works (a) as a disposal document in the instant case specified as the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant recognized the conclusion of the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff in the first instance trial; and (c) dispute only the defects of the construction works; and (d) submitted as evidence a certificate, quotation, tax invoice, etc. proving that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the subcontractor; and (b) it is difficult to conclude that the said documents were falsely prepared, the Plaintiff shall be deemed as the party in accordance with the said contract’s text.

B. As to the liability for damages caused by failure to issue the Plaintiff’s tax invoice: If the entrepreneur who supplied the goods or services fails to obtain the input tax amount deduction from the person who received the supply, without any justifiable reason, even though he was paid the value-added tax by the person who received the supply, the supplier is liable to compensate for the damages equivalent to the input tax amount not deducted in principle.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 105 Decided May 10, 2019