1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract on new urban-type residential housing (18 households) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant-owned Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to new construction of urban-type residential housing (18 households), and agreed to adjust the remainder after the completion of the construction inspection, for eight months from May 2013 to eight months from the construction period, and the construction cost shall be KRW 1.95 billion in total, including value-added tax of KRW 1.739 billion in the construction cost and value-added tax of KRW 1777,7390,000 in the construction cost.

B. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the new construction of the instant housing 18 households (hereinafter “instant housing”) pursuant to the instant construction contract, and on behalf of the Defendant, paid design cost of KRW 40 million and supervision cost of KRW 13.2 million to D, and an additional claim for construction cost of KRW 36,864,00 according to the agreement on the adjustment of construction cost was created.

C. By April 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 1,499,600,000 among the construction cost as above, and deposited KRW 364,364,000 (the total of KRW 274,300,000 for the additional construction cost of KRW 274,300,000 for the construction cost excluding value-added tax) with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit account on August 13, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 364,364,00 for the construction cost of KRW 46,864,00 for the construction cost of KRW 13.2 million.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 18, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the issue

A. The unpaid construction remainder amount is KRW 451,690,000 (=1,951,290,000-1,49,600,000), barring special circumstances, for the Defendant’s payment of the unpaid construction remainder amount to the Plaintiff.

However, if the contractor agrees to pay the value-added tax to the tax office, it should be paid regardless of whether the contractor actually paid the value-added tax, but in this case, the contractor shall pay the value-added tax to the contractor in order to request the contractor to pay the value-added tax.