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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal, deletion, or addition of the following among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. The 16th, 17th, “The net asset value of the instant place of business falls short of the capital of the instant corporation” means “the capital of the instant corporation falls short of the net asset value of the instant place of business.”

3 Myeon 10, 11 "The existence of the obligation" shall be changed into "the existence of the obligation".

"At present, up to the 6th page" shall be deleted.

The 6th 5th 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th

6. 6. 13. The following shall be added:

Since the carried-over taxation of capital gains tax applies to each place of business, in calculating the net asset value of the relevant place of business even if an individual operates multiple businesses, the following items shall be added to 6 pages 7 of "the exclusion of assets or liabilities not directly related to the relevant place of business from the calculation conforms to the purpose of the carried-over taxation

If the debt amount of this case can be deducted on the ground that it is not directly related to the business of the workplace of this case, but constitutes the debt of the workplace of this case, in light of the fact that the net asset value of the workplace of this case must be succeeded as it is to the newly established corporation, the assets corresponding to the debt amount of this case should be added to the assets in calculating the net asset value of the workplace of this case. Therefore, considering this, the corporate capital of this case still falls short of the net asset value of the workplace of this case and does not meet the requirements for carryover taxation of capital gains tax," following the Supreme Court Decision of September 27, 2012.