2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 12,370.

There were several graves managed by I in the forest subject to the above sale.

On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff (AJ on behalf of the Plaintiff) concluded a sales contract with Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, to sell the forest land subject to the instant transaction in KRW 1.235 million to Defendant C, D, and E as a broker of Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, and to Defendant C, D, and E.

A sales contract prepared at the time is a certificate No. 1.

The Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 123.5 million on the day, and the remainder was paid on September 4, 2015.

As the special terms and conditions of a sales contract, the buyer paid 120 million won to I as equipment for a grave, separate from the sales price, and if I did not reach an agreement on a transfer of a grave between I and the buyer until July 10, 2015, the sales contract becomes null and void, and the plaintiff would return the full down payment to the buyer.

However, after the sales contract, I demanded a total of KRW 145 million as a grave transfer equipment.

It is unclear whether K had any defect in the Plaintiff’s possession of the entire equipment of a grave, as alleged by the Plaintiff, at least 50 million won was transferred to I by the Plaintiff, by deeming that the buyer did not directly pay the commencement cost of the grave and then the Plaintiff transferred the entire installation cost of the grave to the Plaintiff, and that at least 50 million won was treated as expenses related to the transfer income tax, as the Plaintiff paid. If the buyer bears the cost of the grave, it would be deemed that at least 50 million won was treated as expenses related to the transfer income tax, and that at least 25 million won was reduced by treating the grave at the expense of the Plaintiff when calculating the transfer income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff.

K and the plaintiff J will ask their respective tax accountants to do so.