1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,751,880 for the Plaintiff and its 15% per annum from January 26, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell a building of approximately 748 square meters and its second floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the purchase price of KRW 2,50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the 28th of the same month.

B. The Plaintiff used a building among the instant real estate as a logistics warehouse, and was engaged in the leasing business. Paragraph 5 of the terms of the instant sales contract stipulate that “The value-added tax on the building shall be, in principle, comprehensive acquisition shall be based on the comprehensive acquisition, and the purchaser shall be borne if the comprehensive acquisition is not conditional (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

C. On January 15, 2019, the Busan District Tax Office issued a notice to the Plaintiff stating that “The business place that the Plaintiff transferred is subject to value-added tax or the transfer of the business stipulated in Article 10(9)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, there is an under-reported problem in sales.”

Accordingly, on January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted the revised tax base return and the revised tax invoice for the additional tax amount to KRW 49,751,885 on the grounds of the non-issuance of the sales tax invoice to the Busan Jindo, and paid the value-added tax amount to KRW 49,751,885.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, each entry of Eul 1, Eul 1 evidence, witness D's testimony, fact-finding results of this court's Busan fact-finding report, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff value-added tax amounting to KRW 49,751,885 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant special agreement, on the grounds that the comprehensive acquisition did not occur due to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(2) Since the instant special agreement was originally added to the Defendant, there is no obligation to pay the value-added tax to the Defendant, and there is a obligation to pay the household affairs.