1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 38,00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2020 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2001, the ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was transferred on April 14, 2001 with respect to Chuncheon apartment B and C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On August 18, 2006, the registration of the decision of voluntary auction commencement with creditors D was completed with respect to the real estate in this case.

(c)

On July 3, 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E on the ground of sale and purchase on July 2, 2008, and the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the debtor E and the debtor as F organization of E and the right to collateral security has been completed, and on July 4, 2008, the registration of cancellation of the decision to commence the above auction was completed.

(d)

On September 14, 2018, the ownership of the Plaintiff became extinct due to the restoration of the true name of the registration.

E. On February 6, 2020, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 38,00,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she violated Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Real Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) under Article 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (f) The Plaintiff filed for an administrative adjudication against the instant disposition on February 17, 2020, but the Gangwon-do Administrative Adjudication Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 25, 2020.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has become a de facto marital relationship with another person's debt, and as a result, the auction procedure for the real estate of this case, which is the only property, has been conducted, and it has become a trust in the name of E.

Although the Plaintiff did not evade taxes or avoid statutory restrictions, the Defendant issued the instant disposition without considering all the grounds for reduction of penalty surcharges under the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act.