1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2, 2004, the Plaintiff and B entered into a contract with C to purchase KRW 207,940,000 of the purchase price with the amount of KRW 3,179 square meters prior to the subdivision, the land prior to the subdivision, and paid the balance of the purchase price to C on May 31, 2004.

B. On July 16, 2004, the land prior to the division was divided into 757 square meters prior to D, E, 189 square meters prior to E, F, 807 square meters prior to G, and 1,966 square meters prior to G (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) and each of the instant lands was completed in H’s name, which is a shape B, as of August 26, 2004.

C. On October 30, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,772,00 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 3 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) by title trust with H each of the instant land on August 26, 2004.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on May 31, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff intended to complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff voluntarily completed the registration of ownership transfer to H.

Therefore, there is no justifiable ground for the instant disposition, as the Plaintiff did not have the intention of title trust and did not err by failing to perform his/her duty.

B. The proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act provides that a penalty surcharge may be mitigated by 50/100 in the event that it is not for the purpose of evading taxes or avoiding restrictions under the statutes. Since the Plaintiff did not evade taxes or avoid the statutory restrictions, the instant disposition that did not reduce the amount of the penalty surcharge was abused or abused by discretionary authority.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. The disposition is legitimate.