1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On June 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 95,00,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 3(1) and (5) Subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name on the ground of real estate title trust to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the written disposition on June 26, 2018.

(A) Evidence Nos. 2, B, 6, and 7. / [Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, Eul's Evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is the lawsuit claiming that the lawsuit of this case was filed in excess of the period of filing the lawsuit of this case.

In contrast, a litigation for cancellation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the plaintiff became aware of the disposition (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and as seen earlier, the plaintiff was served with the written disposition of this case on June 26, 2018, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was instituted on October 23, 2018 after the ninety days from the lawsuit of this case.

Since the lawsuit of this case was filed with the lapse of the filing period, it is unlawful.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation within the meaning of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition (see, e.g., amendment of October 30, 2018), but in such a case, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for filing a suit seeking revocation, such as complying with the period for filing a suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1039, Mar. 12, 1993). Such circumstance does not affect

3. As the instant lawsuit is inappropriate, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.