1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As of December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff, at the time of the Plaintiff’s representative director, purchased the amount of KRW 1,569 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and agreed to offset the purchase price of KRW 750,00,000 against the Plaintiff’s provisional payment of KRW 750,00,000 as of November 30, 201.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On December 28, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on real estate transactions and acquisition tax with respect to the instant land and filed an application for ownership transfer registration, but the said application was not accepted.

B. On October 5, 2012, the instant land was divided and registered into the amount of 673m2 and the amount of 896m2 in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu and the amount of 30m20,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “D land after division”).

Since then, on November 11, 2013, the land category of the land of the Kugdong-gu Seoul 673 square meters was divided and changed to the land category of the land of the Kugdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “C land after division”) and the land category of the land of the Siung-gu E-road (hereinafter referred to as “E land after division”).

C. On October 13, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that a sum of KRW 183,458,400 shall be imposed, as stated in the attached Form No. 5 of the Real Estate Real Name Act, on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 10 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) due to the failure to perform the registration of ownership transfer within three years from December 22, 201, which was the date of completion of payment in return for the instant purchase agreement, on the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 7, Eul evidence 8-1 through 6, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition of imposition of the instant case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1. As the Plaintiff filed an application for ownership transfer registration on December 28, 2011 with respect to the instant land, the main sentence of Article 10(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act.