1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. With respect to Nos. 105 and 106 of the first floor C on the land (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D on April 6, 2010 was completed on the ground of the sales contract as of March 24, 2010, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E, the Plaintiff’s fraud, based on the sales contract as of November 26, 2010 on November 26, 2010, respectively.

B. On June 19, 2013, the head of Sung-dong Tax Office notified the Defendant of violation 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 instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff, but completed the registration of ownership transfer to D.

C. Accordingly, on October 15, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 31,113,530 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D pertaining to the instant real estate constitutes the registration of title trust under Article 3(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff appealed to the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 24, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was sold to F in KRW 370,000,000 (in lieu of the payment of the purchase price, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire KRW 350,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000 with the repayment of the deposit for lease in lieu of the payment of the purchase price). At F’s request, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with D as the purchaser, and only transferred ownership to D.

Since F or D did not take over the secured loan obligation of the instant real estate that F or D had to take over as a substitute for the payment of the purchase price, the Plaintiff cancelled the above sales contract on October 2010, and attempted to restore the ownership registration to its original state after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.