beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 33,004,00 against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As to the 1,775m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of ownership transfer was made in order to the Plaintiff, who was the wife of June 22, 2009, on August 22, 2009, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on September 22, 2009 on September 22, 2009, the birth of the Dong-si, the birth of which was the birth of B on September 29, 2009, respectively.
B. As a result of deliberation by the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance with the pertinent land as inherited property, the director of the Central District Tax Office: (a) deemed that Nonparty B and 11 shared the instant land; and (b) decided to revise the inheritance tax after deducting the Plaintiff’s share 446/1,775 from the Plaintiff’s inherited property; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the processing result of the civil petition for grievance on September 11, 2013.
C. On April 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2016, in violation of Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) with respect to the portion of 446/1,775 shares of the instant land inherited by the Plaintiff from D, which was trusted in title to D on October 22, 2009, and notified the Plaintiff that a penalty surcharge of KRW 33,04,000 is imposed on the ground of Article 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on July 8, 2015, but the said administrative appeal was dismissed on October 6, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 5, 6, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful since it did not have any title trust with D as to the share of 446/1,775 shares of the instant land, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it did not have any ground for disposition.
(b) annex relevant laws and regulations;