과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Details of the disposition
On March 28, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the area of 942 square meters and 1,808 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and received a decision of prohibition of disposal on November 5, 1990 from Suwon District Court, Sungwon-nam Branch 90Ka2907 as to the instant land, and completed the registration of provisional disposal on November 7, 1990, and filed a lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership against B as heading Sung-nam Branch 90Ga6865 as to the instant land as the above sales contract, and on December 20, 1990, the said decision became final and conclusive at that time after having been rendered a favorable judgment by the said court.
On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land based on the said sale.
On September 16, 2014, the Defendant applied Article 10 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 entered into a contract with the contents of the ownership transfer of real estate but did not register the ownership transfer thereof for a long time. However, Article 3 of the Addenda (No. 494, Mar. 30, 1995) of the Real Estate Real Name Act provides that the grace period of three years shall be calculated from the date the Real Estate Real Name Act enters into force, the period for the imposition of a long-term unregistered imposition shall be from July 1, 199 to June 16, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 156,928,240 on the Plaintiff.
(2) The Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract of this case was concluded on March 28, 190, and the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) applies to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of disposition of the entire purport of the pleading, and the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract of this case was null and void because the Plaintiff did not obtain a certificate of farmland sale and sale.