1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, setting the construction period from October 1, 2010 to January 31, 201 as “171,300,000 won (excluding value-added tax)” with respect to the instant construction project. (b) On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with regard to the value of value-added tax of 20,000,000 won on the supply price of 40,000,000 won, and filed a tax invoice with the Director of the Jeju Tax Office. (c) On March 30, 201, the Plaintiff changed the construction period of the instant construction project from October 1, 201 to 10, 2010 to 30,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On May 13, 2011, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work from around May 13, 201, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for construction cost.

[The appellate court of the first instance: (a) deducted KRW 45,657,999 from KRW 135,657,99, and deducted from KRW 80,000,00 for the payment of the fixed construction cost from KRW 135,657,99; (b) deducted KRW 45,387,985, from the sum of damages claims against the Defendant’s repair of defects; (c) deducted KRW 10,270,01, KRW 2015, KRW 2012, KRW 23882 (Counterclaim); and (d) determined that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the settlement of KRW 10,270,014 (=5,657,99, KRW 45,97,97,957,985).

E. On February 11, 2015, the head of the Ghana Tax Office reported the Plaintiff’s value of supply on the ground that the instant construction was not a supply of goods or services subject to tax exemption, even though it does not fall under the supply of goods or services subject to tax exemption.