1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, the constructor, paid the construction cost agreed to give a contract for the work cost of KRW 25,00,000 for the interior and outside removal of “D building” located in Ulsan-gu C (hereinafter “instant construction cost”). The Defendant demanded and paid the additional construction cost for asbestos removal construction cost, toilet installation cost, etc., and the Plaintiff completed the remainder due to the Defendant’s failure to complete the instant construction work.

Therefore, damage of KRW 33,900,000 in relation to the instant construction work is suffered.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud. On September 18, 2012, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of no suspicion under the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office punishment 69472 in 2012, and the Defendant and the Defendant agreed that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff in total on three occasions, but the Defendant shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff in a way that he issues a tax invoice of KRW 20,000 in total,00 in a way that he issues the tax invoice of KRW 32,00,000 and did not issue the remaining tax invoices.” However, the Defendant merely recognized the Plaintiff’s liability to pay KRW 16,80,000 to the Plaintiff under the instant agreement (i.e., 200, KRW 32,0000, KRW 3200, KRW 2000, KRW 200, KRW 2000).

The issue of this case is whether there was an agreement on the part of the plaintiff, and whether the defendant's words in relation to the issuance of the tax invoice are legally binding.