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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a business operator engaged in metal interior construction business with the trade name of "C," and it is recognized that the defendant paid only KRW 22,00,000 among the construction cost of October 27, 2015 (including value-added tax) and the construction cost of 2,695,000 on December 18, 2015 (including value-added tax) for one bank E branch metal construction work, respectively, and completed all of the construction cost of 26,895,000 (including value-added tax). The defendant paid the plaintiff a total of KRW 24,200,000 (=24,2000,695,000) for the construction cost of 22,200,000 won.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the construction price of KRW 4,895,00 (=26,895,000 - 22,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 13, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment of the total value-added tax amounting to KRW 2,445,00 for the above construction cost (=2,200,000 for KRW 245,00), and the above money cannot be paid. However, according to each of the above evidence and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant at the time of the above construction contract at each of the above construction contract at each of the above, the defendant seems to have made payment of the construction cost as well as the value-added tax as well as the construction cost

In addition, the Defendant brought damages equivalent to KRW 23,186,344, such as cancellation of the designation of collaborative company of the Industrial Bank of Korea as the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment of the Defendant’s claim against the Industrial Bank of Korea was based on the claim for the above construction cost, and thus, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the provisional attachment of the Plaintiff’s claim is justified as the obligee.