1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 17, 1994 with respect to the second floor No. 3 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Yangcheon-gu Seoul and one parcel, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul and the second floor No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On January 18, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of C, the Plaintiff’s head, and on April 28, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D, the Plaintiff’s spouse.

B. On December 8, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the violation of the Plaintiff’s Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”). On February 17, 2012, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,80,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff title trust the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The details of the calculation are as follows.

During the period of violation of the duty of obligation to calculate the imposition rate of total real estate value of the real estate subject to imposition, the following facts: (a) 20% 5% 15% 20,800,000 won (in excess of 2 years from January 1, 2007) from January 18, 2003 to April 27, 2008; (b) 10% 5% 15% 20,800,000 won (based on recognition); (c) there is no dispute; (d) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4; and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including serial numbers if any); and (d) each statement and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the title trust of the instant real estate in the name of C was likely to cause an unfair infringement of the Plaintiff’s property right by a third party, and thus, the Plaintiff did not evade taxes or avoid any statutory restrictions. Therefore, despite the existence of the grounds for reduction of penalty surcharge under the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made without considering the above grounds for reduction of penalty surcharge, was an unlawful act of abusing

(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 evades taxes or statutes.