1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the scope of non-performance of compulsory execution is revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the part pertaining to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2.1. Basic facts. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As to the claim that the Plaintiff purchased only 80% shares of D in KRW 206,640,000 and did not remain the remaining purchase price, the court’s explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (one day between 35 and 4 pages), and thus, citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the Plaintiff’s explanation is advanced or added as follows.

[Supplementary or additional parts] 3.3 15 Does "(see Evidence 10-2, 14, e.g., Evidence 10-2)."

4 The defendant's 1st behavior is called "the plaintiff".

B. The Plaintiff asserts that property tax amount of KRW 29,845,540 imposed in 1201 on the claim for deduction of the purchase price due to additional payment, etc. shall be deducted from the purchase price, since the Plaintiff, as the lessee, paid KRW 29,845,540 on the part of the property tax of KRW 29,845,540 on the part of the property tax imposed in 12013, in relation to the owner of the building and the site in relation to the owner of the building and the building,

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 10 and 26, it is recognized that the plaintiff was paid to the owner of the building and the building site No. 29,845,540 won of the property tax of 2013.

However, property tax imposed on land and buildings for high-class recreation centers, such as entertainment taverns, every year as the tax base date.

6.1. The present case where the pertinent property is currently used for a high-class recreation center, such as entertainment taverns, is imposed on the owner at that time (see, e.g., Articles 107, 111(1)1, 2, and 114 of the Local Tax Act). As seen in the above basic facts, the Plaintiff is attached to the Defendant on May 29, 2013.