The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff held the title trust of each of the instant stores to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

Examining the record, the above recognition by the court below is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of title trust relation, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that each of the instant stores was each nominal trust to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for the purpose of evading taxes or evading restrictions under the laws and regulations, on the ground that the Plaintiff could have lowered the name of the owner of each of the instant stores to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, thereby lowering the excessive cumulative tax rates depending on the owner’s aggregation.

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, although some inappropriate points in the reasoning of the court below are found to have been partially inappropriate, the conclusion that the title trust of each of the stores of this case was aimed at evading taxes or evading legal restrictions is justifiable to have determined that the subject of penalty surcharges under Article 5(1)1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) is subject to imposition of penalty surcharges under Article 5(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, and that there was no reason for mitigation under the proviso of Article 3-

There is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on tax evasion, the purpose of avoiding legal restrictions, or the burden of proof in title trust.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.