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 October 10, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased a building of 149 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate in the name of C on November 7, 1997 according to the title trust agreement with C, an ASEAN, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s title trust agreement with C.

B. On October 22, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 23,600,000 on the ground that it falls under Articles 3(1) and 5(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion demanding the reduction of KRW 50/100 of the penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act on November 7, 2013. However, on November 13, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the said penalty surcharge of KRW 23,60,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s provision on mitigation of the said Enforcement Decree cannot be applied (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate was nominal trust with C are only aimed at preventing future inherited property disputes between the children of the spouse who were remarriedd by the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff’s children, and thus, did not evade taxes or avoid restrictions under the laws and regulations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate was not mitigated or abused by discretionary authority, even though there were no grounds for

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name provides that a penalty surcharge may be reduced by 50/100 pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act in cases where “where taxes are not evaded or the restrictions under the laws and regulations are not avoided” and the said proviso does not aim at evading taxes or avoiding restrictions under the laws and regulations.