1. The imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 83,800,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on February 22, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 7, 2001 under the name of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B 302 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and the name of Da (the Plaintiff’s wife) on August 20, 2009.

B. On September 2010, C asserted that the Plaintiff changed the instant real estate in the name of D without the consent of C, the owner, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff by forging private documents, etc.

On October 27, 2010, the Plaintiff made a statement to the police that “the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate, and was title trusted to C for distribution as it owned several buildings at the time.”

On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution decision of suspicion (incompetence of evidence).

C. On May 6, 2015, the instant real estate had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff due to inheritance.

From October 17, 2016 to November 5, 2016, the Director of the Yongsan District Tax Office conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on C in 2009. In full view of the aforementioned non-prosecution decision and the statement in the investigation agency of the Plaintiff, D, and C, the real estate in the instant case was registered in D name on August 20, 209, by deeming that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, was returned to C, and thus, notified the Defendant of the violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

E. On February 22, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty of KRW 83,800,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted the instant real estate to C.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4, 8 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The facts of recognition 1) The plaintiff prepared and sent to C around February 25, 2001 by the plaintiff to C, and E, the meta (Evidence A 30 million won in the C new bank, KRW 256 million in the C Housing Bank, KRW 256 million in the D Housing Bank, KRW 327,275,081 in the A new bank, KRW 7,260,95 in the E new bank, KRW 30 million in the E.