On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling metal, sold B 1,983 square meters of land for factory and its ground (hereinafter “instant factory”) to the Defendant, who is engaged in a personal business with the trade name called “C”, and sold B 1,483.5 square meters of land for factory and its ground (hereinafter “instant factory”) to 2.45 billion won, and completed the payment of the purchase price and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff agreed that the building would be separately paid for KRW 50 million.

(2) Around August 2013, the Plaintiff delivered the instant factory to the Defendant and received KRW 10 million out of the additional tax, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 500 million against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and the facts of recognition as the ground of appeal as to the claim for the purport of the entire pleadings, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of additional taxes in accordance with the sales contract of this case 40 million won and delay damages.

The defendant's defense of non-payment of value-added tax was based on the premise that the payment agreement of value-added tax was fully refunded, but the amount actually refunded was limited to KRW 34,754,279, and the remainder of KRW 15,245,721. However, the defendant's defense of non-payment of value-added tax was based on the condition that the above agreement was fully refunded by the defendant.

The defendant, as the plaintiff voluntarily removed the basic electrical facilities installed in the factory of this case, defense against the costs of re-installation 17 million won paid by the defendant.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the Defendant purchased the factory of this case and performed the construction of electric installations, such as the establishment of a subdivision force, etc., after purchasing the factory of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff at the factory of this case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the testimony of D and E: