2020Nu44796 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing the penalty surcharge

A

Law Firm Chon (Law Firm Chon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee Young-hoon

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Law Firm Decin, 200

Attorney Kang Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2019Guhap5168 decided June 4, 2020

November 19, 2020

December 17, 2020

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 45,600,000 against the Plaintiff on February 18, 2019 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following dismissal or addition (the grounds for appeal by the defendant are not significantly different from the contents of the defendant’s assertion in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented in the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that cited

A. 5 pages 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as “written evidence No. 11” as “written evidence No. 3, 4, and 11”.

B. According to the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance, on March 9, 2018, 2018, the following documents were submitted to the effect that "the plaintiff vindicates whether the apartment of this case is title trust or not," and "the plaintiff submitted a letter of public notice (Evidence No. 3) dated March 9, 2018, stating the details of the sale and purchase of the apartment of this case on March 28, 2018, such as "written vindications related to the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name," "a receipt and transfer certificate," "a apartment sales contract," and "a letter of confirmation on the issuance of the check" (Evidence No. 4).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Kang Han-sung

Awards and Decorations for Judges

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of disposition on April 25, 2019 in the purport of the claim stated in the complaint, but according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 11, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 11.

The date of imposition of the gold is February 18, 2019 and April 25, 2019 is the date of issuance of the notice for payment, so it shall be corrected as above.