The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that since the Plaintiff and the Defendant had known that the key part of the instant contract was not eligible for tax exemption by adding 10% to the value-added tax amount equivalent to 10% for that part, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the value-added tax of this case, which is the amount corresponding thereto, and the damages for delay therefrom, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff. 14,587,834 won for the key part of the instant case during the taxable period of value-added tax, out of the input tax amount preserved by the Defendant, which was included in the contract amount of the instant contract, was paid by the Plaintiff due to the mistake that the key part of the instant case was not eligible for tax exemption, and thus, it should be deducted from the contract amount equivalent

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error affecting the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that even if the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the error in the part on which value-added tax was exempted during the instant construction work in the process of concluding the instant contract with the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s intentional or negligent act

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the contractor.