1. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant’s imposition of the penalty surcharge of KRW 6,040,000 against each of the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 1987, C, including the division of land, completed the registration of ownership transfer for two-fourths of shares due to the inheritance of property on November 22, 1982, with respect to D forest land 16,364 square meters in Goyang-gun, Goyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

On May 31, 200, the Sinyang-gun, the Sinyang-si, the Sinsan-si, and on May 16, 2005, the name of the administrative district was changed to Fdong-gu, Sinyang-gu, Sinyang-si. On February 7, 2007, the area of D forest 16,364 square meters was divided into the area of 14,684 square meters (attached Form 1) and G forest 1,680 square meters (attached Form 2).

(hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” in the attached list) B.

H, such as the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant land, completed the registration of transfer on November 5, 2003 with respect to the share 1,32.32/16, out of two-fourths of C Shares with respect to each of the instant land on April 15, 201.

The Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 12, 2011 with respect to the respective H shares 1,322.32/16,364 of 16,364 with respect to each of the instant lands on April 15, 201, respectively, on April 12, 201.

C. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,040,00 on the Plaintiffs each of the instant dispositions (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on August 21, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiffs violated Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, “The Plaintiff purchased 330.58 shares from C in the name of H and trusted trust to H” (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of each of the instant dispositions. On February 3, 2016, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 7 through 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2, 4, 8, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs asserted each of the lands of this case.