1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance that is dismissed or added is as follows: “Entry” in the second part of the judgment and the fact-finding results with respect to the Seoul Local Government Procurement Service of the court of first instance.

The following shall be added to the seventh instance judgment following the first instance judgment:

5) The defendant asserts that the liability for value-added tax should be determined for each item of the indirect construction cost (labor cost, cost, etc.) recognized in the judgment of this case.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's above assertion should be dismissed because it constitutes a means of attack and defense against the actual time limit. Thus, in this case, the defendant was served with an order to submit the statement of reasons for appeal and necessary evidence from the court of first instance on December 22, 2017 to the court of first instance on January 10, 2018, which was the deadline for submission, and only submitted an application for an extension of the due date for an order to make a statement of reasons for appeal including the above assertion on May 16, 2018, which was the deadline for submission, and the fact that the above assertion was made only when the defendant submitted the statement of reasons for appeal containing the above assertion on May 16, 2018. However, it is difficult to view that the delay in litigation was caused by the closure of the pleadings in this case on the first date for pleading, which was raised by the defendant, and the above argument by the defendant cannot be deemed as a means of attack

Therefore, in full view of the defendant's above argument, Gap evidence No. 1 and the fact-finding with the Seoul District Court of the first instance, the total amount of KRW 16,814,262,160 under the contract of this case is the value of KRW 15,285,692,873 and value-added 1,528,569,287, and the value-added 1,528,569,287, and the above value of supply is the net construction cost [the direct labor cost].