1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s penalty surcharge of KRW 64,314,520 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2016.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attachment thereof, but excluding the “3. conclusion” part), except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as described in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. Under the second sentence of the amended part, the phrase “(including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)” shall be read as “(including a serial number, and, unless otherwise specified, hereinafter the same shall apply)”.

3 The following shall be added between 3 and 4:

3) Under the calculation method of penalty surcharges, the aggregate of the instant building and the respective penalty surcharges based on the individual housing price and the land price without considering the fact that the individual housing price on the instant building had already been included in the land price constitutes double imposition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

From 5th to 4th, “A” in the 5th 3th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

6. The following is added to the right side of the statement. 【6.’ 5. Inasmuch as the facts established in the relevant criminal trial that has been established in the final and conclusive related criminal trial also constitute a flexible evidence in the administrative litigation, barring any special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the relevant criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative litigation, the facts opposed thereto cannot be acknowledged.

That is, the Plaintiff was indicted for committing a crime that entered into a title trust agreement with B and registered the instant real estate in the name of B (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du40016, Dec. 29, 2016). The Plaintiff was convicted of having received a final judgment of conviction from 6th nine to 7th one.