1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 42,223,754 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from January 23, 2019 to August 7, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. From April 1, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) served as the managing director of C Co., Ltd. (the representative director is the same person as the Defendant’s representative director; (b) was dismissed on September 30, 2018; and (c) on April 13, 2018, concluded to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 110,00,000 (including value-added tax) on April 16, 2018, the vessel indicated in [Attachment 1] (hereinafter referred to as “instant vessel”); (d) KRW 40,000,000 for intermediate payment on July 10, 2018; and (e) by dividing the remainder on September 31, 2018 into KRW 60,000,000 for the remainder on December 31, 2018.

the sale was made.

(B) The sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant vessel (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff delivered the instant vessel to the Defendant. Upon the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 60,00,000,000, in total, of KRW 10,000 and value-added tax on July 10, 2018, and KRW 10,000,000, in total, on August 30, 2018.

On the other hand, the registration of vessel chartering was completed on July 3, 2018 with respect to the instant vessel as stated in [Attachment 2].

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, Eul 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the principal claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 50,000,000 for the purchase price of the instant vessel (=10,000,000 for the purchase price - KRW 60,000 paid by the Defendant).

[Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 10,000,000, out of the above KRW 60,000,000, regardless of the instant sales contract, the Defendant received as compensation for the tort related to D parking lot operated by the Defendant (the installation of obstacles to the passage of the entrance and exit of the bank owned by the Suwon-gu Office). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion solely with the statement of No. 9, and there is no other evidence. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion

B. The defendant's defense against the main claim and the defendant's defense