과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As to the fact that there was no purpose of tax evasion in the title trust with respect to the instant shares, the Plaintiff additionally submitted the evidence No. 16 on the payment of property tax, etc. to the court, and claimed the Defendant’s abuse of discretion, which did not reduce the penalty surcharge.
The reduction of penalty surcharges under the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act is apparent to be discretionary reduction. Thus, even if the grounds for reduction exist, it cannot be readily concluded that it is unlawful where the imposing authority imposed the full amount of penalty surcharges without reducing the penalty surcharges, even if the grounds for reduction exist, it cannot be readily concluded that such reduction is unlawful. The fact that a person entitled to registration without applying for the registration of ownership transfer falls
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3257, Sept. 15, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2014Du14129, Mar. 10, 2016). The Plaintiff, despite paying 1/2 of the price to jointly purchase the land of this case with B, was unable to issue a certificate of farmland trade under the joint name because the area of the land of this case was small, thereby under title trust with B.
This is because, under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Farmland Act and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “farmer” is limited to “a person who cultivates or cultivates crops or perennial plants on farmland of not less than 1,000§³, or is engaged in agriculture for not less than 90 days during one year.” This restriction is also maintained until now.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to property tax.