1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The premise is that Plaintiff C is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B and D are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a company that constructs solar power plants.

Plaintiff

On May 30, 2017, between A and the Defendant entered into the first contract for the construction of solar power plants (hereinafter “the first contract”) with the construction cost of KRW 554,400,000 (including value added tax), and the Defendant applied for an inspection to the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation on behalf of the Plaintiffs after completing the construction of solar power plants under the first contract. The inspection was conducted on May 8, 2018.

As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded each construction contract as of July 12, 2019 with respect to the above solar power plant construction works, and concluded each contract for construction works as of July 12, 2019, and concluded each of the second contracts (hereinafter “4 contracts”). Under the second contract, the Defendant issued each tax invoice (in the case of Plaintiffs A, B, and C, the value-added tax amount was KRW 12,971,400, and KRW 6,485,700 in the case of Plaintiffs D) to the Plaintiffs as of October 18, 2019, and on October 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs paid the full amount under each of the said tax invoices to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiffs, prior to the merits, issued the tax account statement only as of October 18, 2019 by violating the duty to issue the tax account statement within six months from May 8, 2018, when the construction was completed under the first contract, and thereby, incurred losses that the Plaintiffs were subject to delayed receipt of the tax account statement and were not paid an amount equivalent to the value added tax paid to the Defendant.

Appellants, as a result of the non-performance of contractual obligation and the conjunctive tort liability, the damages equivalent to the value-added tax against the Defendant based on the general tort liability, the Plaintiff A, B, and C respectively, and the Plaintiff.