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 March 25, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased each of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”) without distinguishing it from 2,066 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul”) before the division, from 2,066 square meters. On April 11, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 25, 2002, e, the mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, for the instant real estate.

B. The Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 75,824,160 on the Plaintiff on March 30, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to register the real right holder’s name under Article 3 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), thereby making a title trust agreement (title trust: the Plaintiff, the title trustee, and the title trustee) and registered under the name of the title trustee.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 through 3, and 5, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion only acquired the land of this case by his wife, such as the plaintiff's spouse, etc. after gathering opinions with the food tools for the purpose of gathering the flasing the flasium, and did not evade taxes or avoid restrictions pursuant to the laws and regulations.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not reduce the penalty surcharge even though it falls under 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 should be revoked illegally

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act provides that a penalty surcharge may be reduced by 50/100 pursuant to Article 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act in cases where “where taxes are not evaded or the restrictions under the laws and regulations are not avoided” shall be proved by the claimant.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 5 Decided July 2012