1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The scope of the judgment in this Court is clearly indicated in the record that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 40 million in accordance with the payment agreement of value added tax as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant sought removal of obstacles based on ownership as a counterclaim. The first instance court received all of the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim, and it is evident that only the Defendant filed an appeal.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant, which is part of the plaintiff's main claim, is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined, and the grounds for appeal citing the reasoning for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the above part, except for the part “the judgment on the claim of second-party” of the third through fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance 3 to the part “the judgment on the claim of second-party” as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

[Supplementary tax payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is premised on the Defendant’s full refund of KRW 50,00,000,000 for additional tax, and thereafter the amount actually paid is limited to KRW 34,754,279, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,524,572 for additional tax returns due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of additional tax payment agreement should also be deducted from KRW 15,245,721 for additional tax return and KRW 16,524,570,293 for additional tax return, which was not actually refunded from KRW 40,000,00,000 for additional tax return.

However, evidence submitted, such as evidence Nos. 1, 1, 15 (including additional numbers) was merely a condition that the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancel the refund of the total amount of surtax in determining the purchase price at the time of the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

It is difficult to recognize that there was an agreement similar to or similar to the above, and it is insufficient to recognize that the additional tax was imposed on the defendant due to the plaintiff's mistake, and this is different.