1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion made in this court under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion in this Court does not differ significantly from the assertion in the first instance court, and all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and this court are examined as follows. The fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are justifiable. The Defendant’s assertion in addition to the Plaintiff’s disposition in this case without examining whether there exist grounds for reduction of penalty surcharge under the proviso of Article 4-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act at the time of the instant disposition constitutes a deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority.

Judgment

The proviso of Article 4-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act concerning the reduction of penalty surcharges imposed on a person entitled to registration who fails to file an application for registration of ownership transfer within a given period is apparent. Therefore, even if the grounds for reduction exist, where the authority imposing penalty surcharges takes into account the grounds for reduction and imposes the full amount of penalty surcharges without reducing the penalty surcharges, it cannot be readily concluded that it is unlawful. However, barring any special circumstance, barring such circumstance as not taking into account the aforementioned grounds for reduction at all, or not reducing the remaining penalty surcharges, the disposition imposing the enforcement fines is illegal and abused by discretionary authority

In addition, the reasons for mitigation were not considered.

In order to recognize that the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge is illegal on the ground that it is not a reason for mitigation or that it is erroneous on the ground that it is not a reason for mitigation, it should be premised that

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548 Decided July 15, 2010