1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

1. On October 27, 2009, the Plaintiff’s assertion C entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 61,000,000 (value added tax) for the interior works of the 3rd Einsium Einsium of the building (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, and entered into a construction contract for the construction work of KRW 65,310,000 including the additional construction work of KRW 4,310,00.

However, at the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant and C agreed to withhold the payment of KRW 6,531,000 equivalent to the value-added tax without reporting the tax on the instant construction contract. However, if C had to bear value-added tax due to subsequent tax investigations, etc., then C agreed to bear the said KRW 6,531,000 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On April 19, 2014, C received a tax investigation and imposed value-added tax on the omitted portion of sales. On April 19, 2014, C transferred to the Plaintiff the claim equivalent to value-added tax that C had against the Defendant under the instant agreement, and notified it.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,531,00 equivalent to the value-added tax.

In addition, the agreement of this case is an agreement made for the purpose of tax evasion and may be deemed null and void in violation of good customs and other social order. In this respect, the defendant is obliged to pay the above 6,531,00 won, which had been reserved with C, to the plaintiff.

2. The facts that C and the Defendant separately stated the value-added tax on the construction cost under the construction contract of this case are acknowledged as above, and the fact that the Defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to C is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings are as follows. In other words, the defendant paid C the remainder after deducting the value added tax from the construction price under the construction contract of this case, and C shall be the case.