logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.10 2017구합60773
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. As to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”), on December 28, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of C on December 28, 2006, and on January 24, 2007, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) in the name of the Plaintiff’s spouse, the maximum debt amount, 104,000,000.

B. On May 12, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that penalty surcharges of KRW 16,377,600 shall be imposed on the Plaintiff based on Article 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) by title trust with C on the portion of 1/2 of the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposition,” and the said penalty surcharge is referred to as “instant penalty surcharge.” Specific grounds for calculation of the instant penalty surcharge are as follows.

이 사건 과징금 16,377,600원 = 부동산평가액 81,888,000원 × 부과율 20% ▷ 부동산평가액: 81,888,000원 (소득세법 제99조에 따른 기준시가: 개별공시지가) - 1㎡당 192,000원(2015. 1. 1. 기준) × 토지면적 853㎡ × 소유지분 1/2 ▷ 부과율: 20% - 부동산평가액 5억 이하: 5% - 의무기간 경과기간 2년 초과: 15%

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned 104,00,000 won, half of the land purchase fund of this case, to C, and established the mortgage of this case in D’s name to secure this. Since there was no title trust with C as to the share of 1/2 of the land of this case, the instant disposition does not exist any grounds for disposition. 2) Even if the above grounds for disposition exist, the instant disposition does not evade taxes or is in accordance with laws and regulations.

arrow