1. Each claim filed by the Lessee is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Lessee.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 28, 2006, the counterclaim Defendant and the counterclaim Plaintiff A entered into a land purchase service contract with respect to the land of G members in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

B. According to the service cost payment according to the above land purchase services agreement submitted by HH, an affiliate company of the LAD, to the tax office, the total amount of KRW 560 million, which is the amount of KRW 30 million, October 27, 2006, KRW 500 million, KRW 50 million, KRW 21,200,000 on December 21, 2006, KRW 10,000,000 on March 2, 2007, KRW 60,000 on June 8, 2007, KRW 30,000,000 on June 16, 2007, KRW 200,000 on April 16, 2007, KRW 207, million on June 27, 207, and KRW 707,500,000,005,000 on the counterclaim Defendant.

The decision-making company H seems to have reported to the tax office as above. 【The grounds for recognition, the fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap No. 1, and the result of the return of the tax information submission order issued on August 25, 2016 by the director of the Namyang District Tax Office, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Counterclaim Plaintiff’s assertion, the counterclaim Defendant, and four persons, including Nonparty I, entered into a land purchase service agreement with the Plaintiff.

The counterclaim Defendant received service cost of KRW 400 million from H to the counterclaim and issued a tax invoice of KRW 200 million in the name of the counterclaim Defendant. However, according to the letter of order to submit tax information submitted by the director of the Namyang District Tax Office to the court on August 25, 2016, the total amount of service cost was KRW 560 million and the amount received by the counterclaim Defendant was KRW 434 million.

In other words, the counterclaim Defendant did not receive and distribute the 40 million won (=60 million won-560 million won) separately from the Counterclaim Plaintiff, and did not receive and distribute the 34 million won service cost (=40 million won).

Therefore, the counterclaim Defendant is obliged to pay to the counterclaim the amount of 37 million won embezzled (=the sum of 74 million won x 2 man/4) and delay damages.

3. Claim of the counterclaim Defendant.