1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,146,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 3, 2016 to July 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the construction and remodelling business, and the Defendant is the owner of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government B and its ground Celel building (hereinafter “the instant cartel”).

Around February 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) decided to remodel the instant telecom; (b) requested the Plaintiff to estimate the construction cost; and (c) received an estimate of KRW 741,014,520 (total value-added tax insurance amounting to KRW 669,051,412) from the Plaintiff around February 27, 2015.

B. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with the main contents of “the construction cost of KRW 975 million (i.e., net construction cost of KRW 870 million)”, “the commencement date of construction work,” “the commencement date of construction work of KRW 870 million”, “the commencement date of construction work of March 16, 2015,” “the scheduled completion date of construction work of June 30, 2015,” “six months”, and “0.1% of the delayed delay penalty rate of KRW 0.1%” (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

C. After the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to obtain a loan as collateral and prepared a formal contract with the amount of construction cost of KRW 1.353 million (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 1.230 million) (hereinafter referred to as “commercial contract”) with the net construction cost of KRW 1.23 billion, and received a loan from the North Busan Agricultural Cooperative by submitting the said contract.

The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 1,350,000,000,000 for supply price of KRW 88,000,000 during the first period of 2015, and KRW 473,000,000 for the second period of 2015, respectively.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 36 million more than KRW 123 million as value-added tax under the instant construction contract, which is value-added tax, and additionally paid KRW 10.8 million as corporate tax.

C. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant’s husband sent to the Plaintiff the details of the settlement of the unpaid construction cost of the instant construction contract. The Plaintiff’s husband added KRW 957 million to the Plaintiff due to a formal contract with the total construction cost of KRW 957 million under the instant construction contract = KRW 468 million.