logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.03.27 2013구합708
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the actual operator of Company B (hereinafter “B”) and Company C (hereinafter “C”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of seven members of the Urban Development Promotion Committee (hereinafter “each land of this case”) as of May 13, 2008 as of each land indicated in [Attachment 1] and each land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in the name of each member of the Urban Development Promotion Committee at the time of the registration of transfer in the name of seven members of the City Development Promotion Committee, among the following: (a) around March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff was promoted by land substitution method and purchase method for the urban development project of the Dong-si E District (hereinafter “instant urban development project”); and (b) around May 13, 2008.

B. On January 21, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,792,522,610 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted each of the instant land to seven persons, including G, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff held title trust with respect to each of the instant land, the sum of the imposition rate based on the assessed real estate value pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the attached Table thereof, and the imposition rate based on the imposition rate based on the past period of the breach of duty

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds as it misleads facts or abused discretion.

1. The plaintiff is a company operated by the plaintiff to purchase the land in the project area because the cooperation of the land owners in the project area was required in the course of promoting the urban development project of this case, and each of the land of this case is the debtor.

arrow