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

27,251,920 won shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff’s argument in the grounds of appeal is basically different from the assertion in the first instance court. However, even if the Plaintiff’s argument was based on the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 9-1, 14-20, and 14-20, and the witness of the first instance trial, the first instance court’s △△△△△△, which was concluded in the process of establishing the Plaintiff corporation, contributed not only to the Plaintiff corporation without compensation, but also to the Plaintiff corporation’s equipment, ancillary facilities, and equipment, through the instant transfer contract, which was concluded in the process of establishing the Plaintiff corporation, but also to the Plaintiff corporation by taking over all of its employees, patients, etc., and comprehensively succeeding to all rights and obligations. Even if the right to transfer remains, the Plaintiff’s business right to acquire the instant processed assets using the status of the representative of the Plaintiff corporation, thereby entering into the instant business license agreement with the Plaintiff corporation, thereby withdrawing KRW 1,00,000 from the proceeds of the Plaintiff corporation’s business right and resulting in an unreasonable decrease in the corporate tax of the Plaintiff corporation.

C. It is justified to judge that "the case is".

Therefore, the reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: ① the entry in the evidence No. 12, ② the witness of the court of first instance, ② the witness of the court of first instance added the witness of the court of first instance, ② the “each evidence” before the 8th court of first instance, and the results of inquiry into the Ministry of Health and Welfare by this court; ③ the addition of the “additional judgment” after the 11th court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the “additional judgment” as stated in Paragraph (2) above to the following acts of the 11th court of first instance, and thereby, it cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

『⑻ 원고는, 이 사건 양도양수계약서는 원고의 원무과장 이◇◇가 양도양수계약 및 권리금의 의미를 전혀 모르는 상태에서 원고 법인의 자동승계와 관련하여 건강보험심사평가원에서 양도양수계약서의 제출을 요구하여 급하게 단순히 권리금이 없는 것으로 하여 계약서를 작성 ㆍ 제출한 것으로,'권리금 없음'으로 기재한 부분은 허위라고 주장한다. 그러나, 당심 증인 이◇◇의 일부 증언과 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 양도양수계약서의'권리금 없음 기재 부분이 허위라고 보기 어렵다.

① In the course of performing the ordinary affairs, △△△△△△ has confirmed the facts and entered it in his own discretion without confirming the existence of the premium in the contract for the transfer and acquisition of this case, and it is extremely exceptional in view of the business operation method of △△△△△△△△△. Furthermore, it is difficult for △△△△△△△ to arbitrarily determine the amount of the premium in his own discretion without specific confirmation, even though he did not know of the fact at the time of preparing the contract for the transfer and acquisition of this case, even though he did not confirm the existence of the premium in this case.

② If the meaning of the premium at the time of preparing the transfer/acquisition agreement of this case was different according to the assertion of △△△△, it is sufficiently possible to treat the premium in the form of the transfer/acquisition agreement in blank as it is, even if it is sufficiently possible to do so, to write two copies of the transfer/acquisition agreement form, and submit two copies of the transfer/acquisition agreement to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for the submission of the statement to be false is inconsistent with social norms and sound common sense.

③ The former △△△△ received a report from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service that there was a request for data relating to the contract for acquisition or transfer from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, and in addition, even though △△△△ was aware that △△ was submitted to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, it did not entirely deal with the instant contract for acquisition or transfer.

⑼ 원고는, 이 사건 영업권에 대한 평가금액이 적정하다고 주장하나, 원고는 애초에 전문평가기관이 아니라 세무대리인이 임의 평가한 금액을 기준으로 이 사건 영업권의 가액을 결정하였고, 무엇보다 원고가 제시한 영업권감정평가표는 미래기간에 대한 추정치 등 영업권 금액을 추정함에 있어서 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있는 제반 요소들에 대한 사전 검토가 없었던 것으로 보인다.

⑽ 의료법인은 정부의 지역 간 의료기관 불균형 해소정책 일환으로 의료취약지역에 의료법인 병원 건립을 위한 정책 수단으로 도입된 제도이다. 관할 시도지사는 해당 법인이 의료기관을 운영할 수 있는 충분한 재정적 기초가 확립되어 있는지 여부를 심사하여 설립허가를 하며, 설립등기를 함으로써 법인의 의료업이 가능하게 된다. 따라서 의료법인 설립 후 법인이 출자 받은 의료기관의 영업권을 유상으로 별도로 취득하는 것은 의료법인의 재정적 기초를 형해화할 수 있어 의료법인 설립취지에 부합하지 않는다.』

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.