1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 24,590,909 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from February 21, 2013 to June 10, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff actually operates the “C” (business registration is made D with the Plaintiff’s wife), and the Defendant intended to construct approximately 1,400 original livestock pens in Naju City E (hereinafter “the original livestock pens of this case”).

B. Around 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to supply 70,000,000 won (i.e., 50,000 won per square x 1,400 square x 1,400 square x (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) for trats, knifine-type lectures, columns, and roof panels necessary for the construction of the original livestock shed of this case (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and received down payment of KRW 4,00,000 from the Defendant on the same day

C. On October 9, 2010, the Defendant paid 16,000,000 won to the Plaintiff as the instant purchase price, and received a refund of KRW 16,50,000 on the same day. On October 18, 2010, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 8,500,000 following the following day after receiving a refund of KRW 15,500,000 after receiving a refund of KRW 15,00,000 (=30,000,000 in total) after receiving a refund of KRW 30,000,000 in total after receiving a refund of KRW 30,000,000 in KRW 16,50,000,000 in - KRW 30,500,000 in - KRW 8,500,000 in - KRW 30,50,005).

Meanwhile, among the original livestock pens of this case, the degree of 600 square meters was collapsed on December 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, 6 through 11 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 5 video, witness F and G testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion was that the purchase price in this case increased from 70,00,000 won to 79,940,000 won, and the purchase price of the goods additionally supplied was KRW 11,672,00,000 and KRW 16,472,000 (= KRW 11,672,00,000) were required, and the Defendant imposed KRW 20,600,000 for the original housing reconstruction cost of this case which was collapsed by the width. At the Defendant’s request, H issued a tax invoice for value-added tax of KRW 8,590,90,000, but received KRW 64,000,000 from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant was paid to the Plaintiff on June 1, 602.