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

A. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 8, 2004, with respect to the area of 155 square meters, Jeon-nam, Seo-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

B. On September 20, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,910,400 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file an application for registration within three years after the remainder payment date of the land, etc., pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 21, 2017, the Defendant sent the instant disposition notice to the Plaintiff, which was served on September 25, 2017 on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion was known that the instant disposition was taken around September 25, 2017 when the notice of disposition was served, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it exceeds the 90-day filing period under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) The term “the date on which a disposition, etc. was known”, which is the starting date of the filing period of a lawsuit as prescribed by Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, means the date on which the relevant disposition, etc. was actually known by notification, public announcement, or other means. In the case of an administrative disposition involving the other party, such administrative disposition, barring any special provision, becomes effective by notification to the other party pursuant to the general legal doctrine of declaration of intent, and thus, when the other party becomes aware of the fact that an administrative disposition was taken by recognizing such fact by the other party, the filing period under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act ought to be deemed to run (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8254, Sept. 25, 2014). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the notice of disposition in this case was served on the Plaintiff around September 25, 2017.