1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts to the following purport as the cause of the instant claim. A.

The defendant was awarded a subcontract for the installation of geothermal heating and cooling (Out 1st) among the new construction works of the Ansan Culture Experience Center located in 346-30 located in the Ansan-si Complex from the Home Center.

B. On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff received a sub-subcontract of value-added tax of KRW 390,000,000 from the Defendant for a part of the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The contract states that the Plaintiff received a sub-subcontract of KRW 390,000,000, including value-added tax.

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and received a total of KRW 390,000,000 from the Defendant from September 8, 201 to June 29, 2012.

In addition, on April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff completed additional construction works on the automatic control system equivalent to KRW 22,000,000.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum totaling KRW 39,000,000 for the instant construction cost and KRW 22,00,000 for the additional construction cost, as well as damages for delay.

F. Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the instant construction cost, including value-added tax, at KRW 390,000,000, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the value-added tax separately with the Nonparty A who is legally authorized to act for the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,000, value-added tax.

2. Determination

A. First, the Plaintiff was re-subcontracted by the Defendant for the value-added tax amounting to KRW 390,000,000 on the part of the claim for value-added tax, only with the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone.

It is insufficient to recognize that there is a legitimate authority for or on behalf of the defendant A, and in addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and in full view of the purport of the presumption of pleading as stated in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, the plaintiff raised objection from the defendant.