1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. There is no dispute over basic facts;

A. The Plaintiff is a building contractor performing construction works, and the Defendants are new owners of the above-ground Eel (hereinafter “Eel”) instead of the land D in Jinju-si.

B. On January 10, 2012, the contractor (or field manager) entered into a construction contract with the contractor under the name of the Plaintiff, the contractor’s name, and the contract amount as one billion won (including value-added tax) in the name of the Defendants. On January 10, 2012, the EM completed the EM and the Defendant B registered the business with the trade name of EM.

C. Between the Plaintiff and Defendant B (the nominal owner of the Eelel), the supplier was the Plaintiff and the recipient was the Defendant B, and the tax invoice (one billion won in total) was issued at four times as indicated in the following table, and the value-added tax was fully paid.

The tax amount on the supply value of goods as of June 28, 2012 (1) shall be 181,818,1818,181,1818,181,181,81,81,81,81,8181,44 September 28, 2012, 272,727, 27327, 272,272,72,72,72,72,727, 909,090,909,09,09,009,000 won for the Eel New Construction Corporation on June 30, 2012

D. Since then, the Defendant received from the tax office the refund of the total value-added tax amount of KRW 90,909,090 (hereinafter “instant refund”).

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants claiming for the remainder payment of construction cost of KRW 50 million under the EMoel Construction Contract (Seoul District Court Jinwon Branch Decision 2018Kadan3140), and the Defendants asserted in the lawsuit above that “The EMoel Construction Corporation lent its license from the Plaintiff, and the Defendants paid the construction cost to the Plaintiff’s account or paid it in direct payment to the construction business operator at F’s request, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost has expired.”