1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

5. Sheet 3 to 12.

The parts of paragraphs are as follows.

Article 5(3) of the Real Estate Actual Name Act and the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a penalty surcharge may be mitigated by 50/100 if the Plaintiff is not a purpose to evade taxes or avoid restrictions under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The burden of proof shall be proved by the claimant that such provision constitutes a case where the purpose is not to evade taxes or avoid restrictions under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Since such provision is a discretionary mitigation provision, even if a ground for mitigation exists, the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge in full without considering the grounds for mitigation even if the authority imposing the penalty surcharge exists, it cannot be readily concluded unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1358, Jul. 5, 2012). The Plaintiff asserted that the title trust of this case was made by deception, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff did not evade restrictions under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the land was divided into 6, 7 evidence No. 20, and the entire land were designated as the following circumstances.

In order to acquire the above land in the Plaintiff’s name, the area of the land is less than 1,00 square meters, or the Plaintiff is a farmer.