1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s claim to revoke the issuance of electronic tax invoices issued to the Plaintiff as of October 2, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. C contracted the construction of a new E plant to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and D, around March 13, 2018, awarded a contract to the Plaintiff on KRW 160,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) during the construction.

B. In relation to the above panel construction, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the F Representative G to supply only the panel materials; and (b) requested the F Representative G to perform the panel construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On the other hand, around March 10, 2018, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with H (hereinafter “H”) on the condition that the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction to H with the contract price of KRW 82.5 million (value of KRW 75 million).

D around March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 55 million under the said contract to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 27.5 million to the F account on the same day, and the F (Representative I) issued a tax invoice for KRW 27.5 million to the Plaintiff.

E. After that, H completed the instant construction.

F. However, on October 2, 2018, the Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 46.2 million (i.e., value of supply of KRW 42 million, value of value of KRW 42 million) to the Plaintiff on the pretext of expenses for materials and installation of parts attached to the board of teams (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into any contract with the Defendant on the instant construction, and thus, the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice that does not have any real transaction, and accordingly, sought confirmation that there is no obligation based thereon, and revocation of the issuance of the instant tax invoice.

B. On March 2018, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff requested G, the Defendant’s director, for the instant construction work; and (b) the Defendant was the party to the instant construction contract, but actually the construction work.