2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs are not married couple, and the plaintiff A is under the fault of C, and the plaintiff D is the husband of C.

B. Around April 2012, D filed an accusation with the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office to the effect that, inasmuch as C and the Plaintiff jointly acquired the ownership of several parcels and F located outside E and on its ground (hereinafter “instant farm”), both of the instant farmland and F (30.134% of Plaintiff A’s shares) (i.e., 69.86%, C’s shares) were registered for transfer of ownership only in the future C, and (ii) it is a violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

C. Accordingly, around June 2012, the prosecution rendered a decision that the person who committed the instant accusation case was guilty of violating Article 3 of the Real Estate Real Name Act at the instant farm, etc. around July 18, 2003, on the ground that each ownership transfer registration of the instant farm and its site was completed. In the case of a violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the prosecution rendered a decision that the statute of limitations has expired as of June 14, 2012. At that time, the prosecution notified the Defendant that there was a suspicion of violating Article 3 of the Real Estate Real Name Act.

Accordingly, the Defendant jointly owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) by relevant parties C and the Plaintiffs, and deemed that the Plaintiffs owned their respective shares (69.866%) in C in the future. The Defendant again issued a disposition to impose the said amount as a penalty surcharge under the Real Estate Real Name Act on February 6, 2015, by multiplying the amount calculated by multiplying the assessed real estate value calculated through the standard market price, etc. for the pertinent period of each of the instant real estate by 20% (15% since each of the assessed real estate values is less than 50 million won, since the lapse of 5% each of the assessed real estate values exceeds 50 million won, 115,274,990, by multiplying the said Plaintiffs’ respective shares ratio.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, 2, and Eul’s No. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The case.