과징금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 205,192,30 on January 20, 2016 exceeds KRW 201,05,056,00, out of the imposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 205,192,30.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s real estate title trust, etc. 1) each real estate indicated in the “real estate” column for the calculation sheet of the penalty surcharge attached to attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), refers only to the sequence of individual real estate.
(2) Of the 1, 2, 3, and 4 real estate purchased from B and C, their spouse, and registered the ownership transfer as of June 26, 2012 in the name of D, each of which was the Plaintiff’s head on June 11, 2012. (2) The Plaintiff purchased the real estate from E, but completed the registration of ownership transfer as of June 26, 2012 under the name of the Plaintiff, based on the gift as of June 21, 2012.
B. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 205,192,30 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 3 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) by having the Plaintiff registered under the name D or E while purchasing each of the instant real estate. The details are as shown in the calculation table of the penalty surcharge attached hereto.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 8, 2016.
On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 22, 2016, within the filing period.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of disposition.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1, 2, 3, and 4 real estate had no purpose of evading taxes or evading restrictions under the laws and regulations.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case shall be governed by the Real Estate Real Name Act.