1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,552,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from September 4, 2014 to July 15, 2015.

1. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim

A. On August 18, 2012, the Plaintiff operating a construction company called “C” has completed the construction by concluding a contract with the Defendant for a restaurant interior works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with the second floor of the Daejeon-gu D, Daejeon-gu, with the contract amount of KRW 160,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

B. On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on KRW 18 million out of the construction price to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not pay value-added tax on the said construction price in KRW 10.8 million.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff additionally constructed urban gas pipeline construction, etc., and the construction cost following the additional construction is KRW 14.15 million in total. Thus, the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant is KRW 184.95 million in total (i.e., value-added tax on the tax invoice issued at KRW 160 million in total (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 108 million in total).

However, since the defendant paid only 18 million won out of the construction price, it is obligated to pay the remainder of 7,6950,000 won (=188,4950,000 won - 18 million won).

2. Construction cost payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff

A. According to each of the construction cost and the construction contract, and the tax invoice, the plaintiff is entitled to the above 1-A.

As seen in this subsection, the construction of this case was completed by being awarded a contract for KRW 160 million (excluding value-added tax) and the Plaintiff also may recognize the fact that on January 30, 2013, the value of supply was KRW 18 million and value-added tax was issued to the Defendant, respectively.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 170,88 million (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 160,000,000 for construction cost) and damages for delay.

B. As to the Defendant’s counterclaim against the claim for value-added tax, the Defendant’s tax invoice on January 30, 2013, issued by the Plaintiff, after the taxable period.