1. As to KRW 1,325,095,068 among the Plaintiff and KRW 1,297,848,234 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from December 27, 2014; and 27,246.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 21, 2007, the Defendant announced a public announcement under the jurisdiction of the construction project site development project (hereinafter “instant construction project site”) in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Site Development Project Site (hereinafter “instant project district”) in the construction project (the basic construction cost of KRW 34,592,80,000, estimated price of KRW 32,144,136,000, value-added tax (including purchase tax), KRW 2,448,64,00, and KRW 2,448,64,000; hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiff was selected as a co-contractor with the non-party East Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Construction”).

B. On December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction project at the contract price of KRW 22,288,357,000 by constituting a joint contractor with the same construction and joint contractor, and thereafter, on December 29, 2011, the contract price was changed to KRW 52,794,00,000.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (c)

The project district of this case includes 151,840 square meters in the construction site below national housing scale, 40,114 square meters in the construction site exceeding national housing scale, and 103,571 square meters in other construction sites. On July 23, 2007, Seoul Special Metropolitan City took measures to report to the Defendant on the result of the alteration of design and reduction in the construction site of national housing among the instant construction project site is subject to value-added tax exemption pursuant to Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant tax exemption Act”).

On December 29, 2011, the Defendant changed the contract amount to 26,397,000,000 won, including value-added tax 1,186,830,677 won for the construction cost corresponding to the construction site ratio (48.62%) corresponding to the construction site ratio in excess of national housing scale, except for the construction cost corresponding to the ratio of the construction site in the instant project district (51.38%) between the Plaintiff and the same building site construction. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the same building site construction KRW 26,397,00,000 for the said construction cost.

E. The Plaintiff is subject to value-added tax among the construction cost of KRW 26,397,00,000 received from the Defendant.