1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 131,159,00 against the Plaintiff on October 7, 2015 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 198, 1998, the Plaintiff purchased or leased the land of the Ilyang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B or operated the construction waste interim disposal business.

B. The Plaintiff, while running a construction waste interim disposal business, leased and used the land 1,828 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yongsan-gu, Busan-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan-si, 2005. The Plaintiff was undergoing the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land.

C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Farmland Act, the Plaintiff, a legal entity, is ineligible to acquire the instant land, the land category of which is the answer, entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff’s employee D, and accordingly, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D on May 16, 2012 after being awarded a successful bid of the instant land under D’s name on May 14, 2012.

On October 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 131,159,000 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”) with respect to the instant land, and that the title trust was not applicable to the land acquired by a corporation for the purpose of evading the restrictions under statutes, and that it does not constitute the subject of reduction

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff asserted against the Plaintiff for the purpose of evading restrictions on the relevant laws, such as the Farmland Act, and there was no tax avoidance purpose in paying taxes on the instant land in good faith until now.

Therefore, the defendant should reduce 50% of penalty surcharges pursuant to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act, but did not consider it at all.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretionary power.

(b)as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations;

C. The proviso to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act is “tax.”