과징금부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 5, 2004, D entered into a sales contract with E on May 10, 2004, to purchase KRW 19,835 square meters in price at KRW 4.8 billion in payment, among the 57,933 square meters of G forest land in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (the relevant administrative district was changed to Goyang-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, May 16, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) located in the land transaction permission zone, and to pay the balance of KRW 480 million on the date of the contract and the remainder of KRW 4.32 billion in payment on May 10, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”).
B. On June 25, 2004, H forest land was divided into KRW 19,835 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) within a 57,933 square meters of G forest land prior to the said partition, and subject matter under the instant sales contract was determined as the instant land pursuant to Naom.
C. D on June 29, 2004, upon obtaining land transaction permission from the Defendant, completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land under its own name on the same day.
The instant land was released from the land transaction permission zone on January 30, 2009, and thereafter D, on August 1, 201, for each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff A and B (the mother of Plaintiff A), for the reason that the ownership of each of the instant land [19,835] shares (as for approximately 1,6 shares) was purchased and sold (as for approximately 1,740,000 won) on July 29, 201, and ② for the Plaintiff C, the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 29, 201 with respect to each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff C [13,223, 19,835] shares (as for approximately 2/3 shares) (as for approximately 3,480,000 won).
E. On October 2013, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China: (a) investigated the source of the instant land; and (b) on October 25, 2013, the Defendant jointly acquired 1/3 shares (D), 1/6 shares (Plaintiff A), 1/6 shares (Plaintiff B), and 1/3 shares (Plaintiff C), respectively; (c) on June 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs violated Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).
F. Accordingly, the defendant shall have the real estate real name Act and Article 5 of the same Act.