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 June 30, 197, the Plaintiff held title trust with B on June 30, 197, 1/4 of the shares in co-ownership of the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 725.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant co-ownership shares”); around March 13, 1996, the building on the ground of the said land (hereinafter “instant building”; and the share in the instant co-ownership and the instant building collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 988,841,420 on the Plaintiff based on Article 5(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff registered the title of each of the instant real estate to B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff purchased the real estate in the name of his relative B before the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act and did not feel the need to transfer the name of the real estate in the name of his relative B, and there was no intention to evade taxes or avoid restrictions under the laws and regulations.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not reduce 50/100 of the penalty surcharge pursuant to the proviso to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act is unlawful by abusing discretion.

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

C. The proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act provides that a penalty surcharge may be reduced by 50/100 pursuant to Article 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act in cases where “where taxes are not evaded or the restrictions imposed by law are not avoided” (Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act) shall be proved by the claimant.

On the other hand, the above proviso is a discretionary mitigation provision, so even if there are grounds for mitigation, penalty surcharge.