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 in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 3:

The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs geothermal, astronomical construction business, etc. with the trade name of “D” in Namyang-si, and the Defendant is a representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) which is a corporation operating the installation and manufacturing business of new and renewable energy equipment in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and a personal entrepreneur who has operated air-conditioning installation and transfer service business, etc. with the trade name of “G” in the same Dong.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Nonparty Company for geothermal and Dried Construction among the New Construction Works in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and completed the said construction, but did not receive the construction cost of KRW 38,500,000 from the Nonparty Company (hereinafter “instant construction cost”).

C. Meanwhile, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice for the construction cost of the instant case in the name of “G” under the Defendant’s personal business chain, which is not the non-party company, on October 2015, but thereafter, the Defendant filed a revised return of value-added tax on November 23, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion issued a tax invoice in the name of “G” under the Defendant’s personal business chain with respect to the construction cost of this case at the Defendant’s request. Accordingly, the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from, or took over, the obligation for the construction cost of this case against the Plaintiff

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the name of “G” under the Defendant’s personal business chain with respect to the instant construction cost at the Defendant’s request, but the above circumstance alone is that the Defendant issued the instant construction cost against the Plaintiff of the non-party company.