1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 7/10 (hereinafter “instant forest”) out of the land indicated in Articles 1 through 11 in the List of Real Estate Attached to Attached Table 1, and completed the registration of transfer of each of the instant forest land under B’s name as to the instant forest land on July 23, 2012.

B. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the instant forest land C (hereinafter “instant company”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the instant company on December 20, 2012.

C. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased 7/10 shares of the land listed in Articles 12 through 17 in the list of real estate attached hereto (hereinafter “instant return”), and completed each registration of ownership transfer based on sale on July 30, 2012 in the name of B (hereinafter “first title trust”), and thereafter on March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer based on sale on February 17, 2015 in the name of D (hereinafter “second title trust”).

On August 28, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 73,146,680 (less than KRW 10) calculated as stated in the details of imposition of the penalty surcharge in attached Form 2 on the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant forest land and the answer are the instant company, not the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the title truster is unlawful. (ii) Even if not, the Plaintiff merely held title trust over two occasions under the same circumstances with respect to the instant answer, but the instant forest land and the answer considered the first and second title trust as separate title trust.