1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. In the event that the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial, and even if both evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the purport of the entire pleadings in the first instance trial and the trial in the first instance trial, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion by deeming that the substance of the contract price for the instant facilities constituted the price for the transfer of business rights is justifiable.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the second sentence of the first instance court's decision, the following contents are added.

The current status of each floor of the real estate in this case is as follows: (a) the store (Operation of the plaintiff, brand: F) store (Operation of the plaintiff, brand: the tenant K and brand: L) store (Operation of the plaintiff, brand: the plaintiff's facility) store (a plaintiff's facility is leased to the medical service provider) store (a store) store (a store of the second floor) store (a store of the plaintiff is leased to the medical service provider), and the warehouse (a store of the second floor) store of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance can be recognized as sufficient, and the statement of the evidence No. 15 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

The sixth 18-19 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

No. 11, 16) The plaintiff asserts that E had no interest in the facilities of this case from the beginning, and that E purchased the facilities of this case on the premise of removal (the 11, 16th of the Reasons for Appeal), and in fact, E, around July 2012, immediately after the purchase of the real estate of this case, shall carry out the removal of the facilities of this case (such as removal, walls, floor, etc.) with the cost of KRW 5,934,00.