1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant to sell “D” business entities, such as the factory site and building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Kimhae-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 2.., KRW 2.2 billion). The Defendant decided to acquire a loan equivalent to KRW 4.5 billion, which is a collateral security right to the said real estate in lieu of the purchase price. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a written agreement stating that “The Defendant shall immediately pay the Plaintiff the value-added tax refund ( approximately KRW 200,000,000) incurred from the purchase of the said real estate” (Evidence 2, No. 3, and hereinafter “instant written agreement”).

B. After receiving the instant building from the Plaintiff on October 25, 201, the Defendant filed an application for KRW 168,372,400 based on the fixed assets (the instant building) input tax amount of KRW 200,000 and output tax amount of KRW 158,203,336,00,000. However, on December 13, 2011, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the national tax refund that “the value of the building under the instant sales contract shall be divided into the standard market price by local verification and then the supply value of the building shall be calculated based on the final amount of KRW 113,496,80,00.”

C. From August 31, 2012 to July 31, 2013, the Defendant transferred a total of KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant remittance amount”). D.

On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the Defendant, and returned the original copy of the instant written agreement to the Defendant.

'The fact that the plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the defendant at the same time that the plaintiff returned the original copy of the written consent of this case, which he had possessed with the defendant, does not conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the plaintiff asserts that the time is around January 2012, and the defendant asserts otherwise on December 11, 2013.

.....