1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant’s penalty surcharge imposed on the Plaintiff on May 31, 2017 478,308.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes,” but excluding “3. conclusion”) except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The modification shall include the 3 pages "including a number with a hereinafter number)" on the right side of the nine (including each number) below the 9) amendment.

3 6 to 4 pages shall be deleted under the 3 pages.

On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff withdrawn the assertion that the Plaintiff did not title trust by stating a preparatory document on September 3, 2018 at the first date for pleading in this Court.

4 The 2nd parallel "(2)" shall be raised to "(1)".

Even in the case of the 4th three parallel acts, the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and B is terminated when the Plaintiff contracted the instant land to B, and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price is returned. The title trust relationship is terminated. The fourth five parallel acts were transferred, and the amount of the loan the F et al. received was returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of the instant land was returned to the Plaintiff.

4 The following shall be added between 10-11:

2) The Defendant asserted the defect in the calculation of the penalty surcharge: (a) deemed on August 17, 2016, when the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of a third party due to the sale of the instant land through the voluntary auction procedure; and (b) determined the imposition rate of the real estate value, the imposition rate of the elapsed period of violation of duty, and the imposition rate of the standard for the assessment of real estate value based on the standard; (c) however, if the real estate value is calculated as of January 1, 2010, before each of the instant buildings was constructed on the instant land on the ground of the instant land, the Defendant would be lower than the assessment value of real estate calculated based on the individual housing price as of January 1, 2016