2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was 49,762,737 won against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant building at KRW 1,104,80,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant deemed that value-added tax would be imposed on the instant building, etc. at KRW 110,480,109, and the Defendant would pay the Defendant the said value-added tax to the Defendant by issuing a tax invoice to the Defendant, including value-added tax 110,480,109,000,000,000 for the instant building.

B. On November 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,155,000,000 in total; (b) paid KRW 135,000,000 in total; and (c) paid KRW 50,000,00 in value-added tax for the instant building on December 3, 2014, including the input tax amount for value-added tax on the instant building on January 3, 2015; (d) the Defendant submitted a report on confirmation of value-added tax on the second half of 2014, including the input tax amount for value-added tax on the instant building; (e) the head of Ansan District Tax Office determined that the instant sales on March 12, 2015 cannot be deemed as the comprehensive supply of goods pursuant to Article 10(8) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and (e) determined that the input tax amount cannot be deemed as the comprehensive supply of goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid only KRW 50,00,000 among the value-added tax of KRW 110,458,109 on the instant building, and the Defendant must pay the remainder of value-added tax of KRW 60,458,109 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s storage fees from October 1, 2014 to November 28, 2015 from the requester for storage of capital reduction and livelihood in the instant building.