A. The Defendant alleged that the victim C was holding office in Indonesia “D Golf course” and asked the victim C to receive unpaid money from the members of the golf course. However, according to the lease-related contract, the settlement of the amount to be exchanged between the Defendant and the victim around October 29, 2007 (the investigation record No. 28 pages 28 of the investigation record; hereinafter the investigation record is omitted) was settled, and the Defendant paid 10,000 U.S. dollars equivalent to 150 million U.S. dollars to the victim, and the Defendant paid it to the victim, and the Changwon District Court No. 2009Ga5184 case (hereinafter the “instant civil lawsuit”) also rejected the Defendant’s claim on the ground that there was insufficient grounds for the above claim.

B. Whether there is a claim amounting to KRW 260,000,000,000 for the instant civil action (1) the Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid 260,000,000,000 to the victim on behalf of the Defendant in the instant civil action. However, in the standard tax invoice (the first right 26 pages) submitted by the Defendant, the rent is 2.6 billion,60,000,000,000 for 10,000,0000,0000 for the total rent and 13,00,000,000,000,000 for 10,000,000,000 for 10,000,000 for 10,000,000,000 for 10,000,000 for 10,000,000 for 10,000,000.

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant stated the said tax as value-added tax on rent, and made it clear on the grounds of the tax, such as stating it as the Indonesia global income tax in the name of “Saza Bao”.