logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.12.24 2014구단2601
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 27, 2003, the plaintiffs and C jointly purchased four parcels of land (F, G, and H in the land of the above four parcels of land) including Pyeongtaek-si, E, F, G, and H on May 3, 2012, and all the land of the four parcels of land before the merger, E after the merger, and E in the above land Emenmenbro block block, E in the building of 19 square meters for Gamena (hereinafter “instant building”) and 1/3 shares of each of the above land together with the above land.

B. The Plaintiffs held title trust with respect to each one-third share of the instant real estate to C.

C. C has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate in the Suwon District Court Sejong Housing Site Board No. 57825, Nov. 18, 2003.

On July 10, 2013, the director of the tax office notified C that the Plaintiffs violated the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) by giving title trust to C with respect to each one-third share of the instant land.

E. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 34,032,980 on the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 3 and 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act on the ground that the Plaintiffs had title trust of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant title trust”) on C.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs alleged that the plaintiffs purchased the real estate of this case and completed the registration under the name C, the plaintiffs' profits gained by disposing of the real estate of this case are extremely low, and in particular, the plaintiffs Gap suffered actual damages, and the plaintiff Gap actually purchased the real estate of this case.

arrow