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

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff agreed to settle the cost of business transfer in the manner of acquiring the Plaintiff’s personal debt, i.e., acquiring the Plaintiff’s personal debt through the instant contract. However, the instant corporation did not properly take over the Plaintiff’s personal debt, but paid the Plaintiff’s debt to the instant corporation through the auction on the Plaintiff’s personal property, and thereafter, it was impossible for the instant corporation to actually take over the Plaintiff’s personal debt due to its closure.

On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the instant legal entity of its intent to rescind the instant contract on the ground of the instant legal entity’s nonperformance of obligations as seen above, thereby lawfully rescinding the instant contract.

The rescission of the instant contract falls under subparagraph 2 of Article 25-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27833, Feb. 7, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes"), which is the grounds for future correction, and thus, the refusal disposition of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the instant case is unlawful.

The omission of Table

(b) Relevant statutes and facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

○ 5. The following shall be added to the 3rd line:

According to the above report on the actual inspection of assets and liabilities, the current status of assets and liabilities of the private company of this case, including the above debts, shall be as follows:

In addition, this accounting corporation assessed the value of business rights of the private company of this case as KRW 1,644,212,000.

From the 5th bottom to 2nd 3 lines “(However, this case’s corporation does not seem to have any obligation to pay the above loans to Korea Investment Mutual Savings Bank).”

"The plaintiff, as the representative director of the corporation of this case, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff himself/herself on the discharge of the above obligation, as the debtor, as the representative director of the corporation of this case after the resolution of the board of directors. However, in the case of the above loan obligations to the plaintiff's Korea Investment Mutual Savings Bank, the corporation of this case entered into an agreement on the discharge of the obligation with the corporation, or did not change the name of

7. The part of "A evidence of heading 1 through 15, 19, 24" of the inner line shall be understood as "a evidence of heading 1 through 15, 19, 24, 26, 27".

7 The respective "court" of two and three lines shall each be "court of the first instance".

C. Determination

1) According to Article 45-2(2)5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and the former part of Article 25-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a contract related to the effect of transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis of calculating the tax base and amount of tax, is rescinded by the exercise of the right of rescission or is rescinded due to unavoidable reasons that occurred after the formation of the relevant contract, a taxpayer may file a claim for determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware that such reasons have occurred. In addition, in the case of income tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation is the person entitled to taxation, but if the facts of taxation are revealed in the course of a specific lawsuit, the reasons such as cancellation, which is the

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the instant case’s return to the instant case and the fact that the instant corporation’s obligation under the instant contract was omitted in an impossible condition, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant corporation’s obligation was discharged in an impossible condition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① According to the above facts, while the Plaintiff was operating the instant individual company on September 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire all of the instant individual company’s assets, liabilities, business rights, etc. from investors to attract investments, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the instant corporation in the process of having established the instant corporation through an inspection on the assets, liabilities, business rights, etc. of the instant individual company.

As such, the instant contract was concluded in the process of converting the instant individual company into the instant corporation by comprehensively transferring all rights and obligations with respect to the instant individual company’s assets, liabilities, business rights, etc., such as the instant individual company’s assets, liabilities, and business rights, to the instant corporation (Article 1 of the instant contract stipulates that the purpose of the contract is to convert the instant individual

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant corporation failed to transfer some of its obligations under the Plaintiff’s personal name to the instant corporation or failed to repay all of its obligations later.

② On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff established the instant legal entity, appointed as its representative director, and acquired all the assets and operating rights of the instant legal entity by transfer until September 15, 2009. Moreover, the instant legal entity has repaid interest while classifying and managing the Plaintiff’s obligations under its name as a short-term loan. The instant legal entity has invested KRW 35 million in the cost from the business year of 2009 to the business year of 201. In case of partial loans to the Plaintiff’s foreign exchange bank, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to directly accept the Plaintiff’s obligations under the name of the Plaintiff as the representative director of the instant legal entity and transferred the registration of the establishment of the neighboring legal entity. The instant legal entity was subsequently closed for about 2 years and 6 months until March 31, 2012, and the implementation of the instant agreement was completed.

③ Although the instant corporation did not change its business-related part of the debt obligations under the Plaintiff’s name, it is sufficiently acceptable in light of the Plaintiff’s acquisition procedure, which requires the Plaintiff’s consent. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was merely the formal representative director of the instant corporation and that the actual representative director was difficult, the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to assume the debt obligations to the instant corporation. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to assume the debt obligations, the Plaintiff and the instant corporation did not have any objection to assume the debt obligations by the method of taking responsibility for the repayment regardless

④ The Plaintiff asserts that the right to cancel a contract has been created because the assumption of an obligation under the contract of this case constitutes a performance acceptance, even if the obligation acquired by the corporation of this case was discontinued without fulfilling the obligation, and some obligation was repaid through the voluntary auction procedure for the apartment of this case.

However, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the corporation of this case comprehensively takes over the business including assets and liabilities from the individual company of this case, and manages its liabilities, and continues to pay interest, and the essence of the contract of this case is the comprehensive transfer of business, not the contract of transfer of business rights, but the transfer of business rights by the corporation of this case and the acquisition of obligations under the name of the plaintiff. However, although the transfer of business rights by the corporation of this case and the liabilities of the company of this case were jointly transferred to the corporation of this case to the corporation of this case, the transfer of business rights by the corporation of this case and the acquisition of obligations under the name of the plaintiff of this case are not directly in a quid pro quo relationship between the transfer of business rights by the corporation of this case and the acquisition of obligations under the name of the plaintiff of this case, and the plaintiff seems to have no interest in changing the name of the debtor of this case, even if the corporation of this case worked as the representative director of the corporation of this case and did not request the change of the name of the debtor of the corporation of this case.

3) Furthermore, as of June 8, 2015, the document of rescission of this case was prepared, at the expiration of five years from September 15, 2009, which is the date of the payment for transfer or acquisition and the date of the full transfer of business under the instant contract. Since the instant corporation was closed after its closure, it was difficult to expect that both the Plaintiff and the instant corporation perform the duty of restoration following the cancellation. Ultimately, the Plaintiff appears to have cancelled the instant contract solely for refund of the comprehensive income tax without any economic burden to perform its duty of restoration following its cancellation.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.