1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the Defendant to determine the construction cost of KRW 35,200,000 as value-added tax of KRW 32,00,000 as value-added tax of KRW 32,20,000,000 for the dismantling and removal of architecture among the construction works for extension of A building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction on May 11, 201.

C. On May 31, 201, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 11,00,000 for construction cost, and KRW 11,000,000 for construction cost on July 1, 201, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant shall, unless there are special circumstances, claim only 12,000,000 won, which the plaintiff claims against the plaintiff among the remainder of the construction cost, for the outstanding construction cost of this case, 13,200,000 won (35,200,000 won - 11,000,000 won - 11,000,000 won), but the plaintiff shall claim only 12,00,000 won, which is not included in the additional tax of 1,20,000 won.

In addition, from May 11, 2011, the defendant is obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act until April 20, 2016, which is considered to be a considerable time to dispute the existence and scope of the payment obligation by the defendant, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s defense 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case was agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, who was the general manager of the construction work, for the remaining construction cost of KRW 12,00,000,000, and was paid to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff issued Maspar Electronic Tax Invoice, which was accepted by the Plaintiff, based on the rescission of the contract, the Defendant is not liable for the payment of the said construction cost (the defense of obligation with exemption).