1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either as a matter of dispute between the parties or as a whole in the statements set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 10, 12 to 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including additional numbers).

On November 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the CPublic Notice Institute (hereinafter “instant construction”). The main contents are as follows.

The construction site: The construction commencement date of the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project to be implemented on November 8, 2012 (based on the date of the first intermediate payment for the construction project): the contract amount on January 8, 2013 (based on the date of the completion of the construction project for the first time): the amount of the contract for the project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project to be implemented on January 3, 2013 (based on the date of the completion of the construction project for the construction project for the first time): the amount of the contract for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project for the construction project to be implemented on January 8, 2013:

B. The Plaintiff continued construction in accordance with the instant construction contract and completed construction on April 26, 2013. During that process, without issuing a tax invoice, only filed a claim for the remainder of the agreed construction cost, excluding value-added tax, against the Defendant. From November 1, 2012 to April 4, 2013, the Defendant also paid to the Plaintiff KRW 357,776,440 of the remainder of the agreed construction cost, excluding value-added tax, on a total of seven occasions.

C. After that, on June 2014, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries discovered the omission of the return of value-added tax related to the instant construction project, and demanded the Plaintiff to file a revised return of value-added tax. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff imposed a disposition of imposition of value-added tax including the surcharge that is not bona fide reported, including the surcharge that is assessed against the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that at the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to engage in non-issuance of tax invoices for the purpose of saving, and the Plaintiff, the contractor, inevitably consented thereto.

Ultimately, the plaintiff and the defendant are related to the construction of this case.