1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant and Daegu-gu Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that sell the sales price of KRW 1.59 billion to the Defendant for KRW 1.59 billion.

B. On June 4, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the instant sales contract with respect to the instant real estate.

C. On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,503,160 for value-added tax (including additional dues) upon the instant sales contract, and the Defendant was refunded value-added tax of KRW 52,497,450 for the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the value-added tax on the sales contract of this case was not paid to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was refunded KRW 52,497,450 of the value-added tax paid by the plaintiff, which constitutes unjust enrichment, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above money.

B. Where it is unclear whether value-added tax is included in the purchase price, it is reasonable to deem that value-added tax is included in the purchase price, barring special circumstances.

(2) In the event that Article 29(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the supply of goods or services and it is unclear whether the amount of value-added tax is included in the amount received for the supply of goods or services, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount received for the supply by 100/110 shall be the value of supply. In addition, in light of the above legal principles, if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statement of evidence No. 1 in light of the above legal principles, it is recognized that the instant sales contract did not contain any indication as to value-added tax, and otherwise, it is recognized that there was a provision regarding value-added tax in the instant sales contract.