1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff borrowed the instant land, etc. on September 25, 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day by leasing the instant land, etc. in the voluntary auction procedure conducted to Ansan-si District Court, Ansan-si, for the land B and its ground houses (hereinafter “instant land, etc.”).

B. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff to have held title trust with D, and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 36,450,00 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land, etc. was nominal in the name of the Plaintiff, the amount of penalty surcharge should be reduced to half because the Plaintiff did not evade taxes or avoid restrictions under the laws and regulations.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant 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 in cases where it is not for the purpose of evading taxes or avoiding restrictions pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations. Since it is apparent that it is a discretionary mitigation provision, even if the grounds for reduction exist, if the imposing authority takes into account the grounds for reduction and imposes a penalty surcharge in full without reducing the penalty surcharge, it cannot be concluded that

On the other hand, it should be proved by the claimant that it is not for the purpose of evading taxes or avoiding restrictions under the laws and regulations.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3257 delivered on September 15, 2005, etc.). Each of the items stated in the Evidence Nos. 2 and 3 returned to the instant case and the health room and the evidence No. 2 and 3 alone, at the time when the Plaintiff title trust the instant land, etc. to D.