1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 24,200,000 against the Plaintiff on April 12, 2017 exceeds KRW 16,80,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in a construction business, is transferred the ownership of Seoul Jung-gu B, 103 Dong 502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Dong C on December 24, 2012. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the construction business, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Dong C, his spouse, and maintains it until the date of closing argument in the instant case.

B. On April 12, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 24,200,00 [the assessed value of the instant real estate x KRW 121,00,000 x 20% (the assessed value of the instant real estate x 50,000 (the assessed value of the collective housing as of January 1, 2016) for the following reasons: (a) pursuant to Article 5 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 title to the instant real estate from December 24, 2012 to April 12, 2017; (b) the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 24,200,000 [the assessed value of the instant real estate x 50,000 won

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”) (hereinafter “Disposition of this case”) is without dispute, Gap’s 1 to 3, Eul’s 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. From December 24, 2012 to December 28, 2012, the period for which the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff violated the Real Estate Real Name Act by registering the instant real estate under another person’s name. From the time when the registration was completed under D’s name, the spouse was completed, the date before October 28, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not engage in title trust for the purpose of evading taxes or evading restrictions under the relevant laws and regulations. As such, 50/100 of the penalty surcharge should be mitigated pursuant to the proviso to Article 4-2

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which did not reduce the penalty surcharge, including the period registered in the name of spouse during the period of violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act, is unlawful.

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

C. In light of the following facts, the period of violation of the Plaintiff’s Real Estate Real Name Act is as follows: (a) the period of violation of the Plaintiff’s Real Estate Real Name Act shall be December 24, 2012, before completing the registration under the name of the spouse D.