logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.05.19 2015구합12217
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a clan in which the descendants of A are members of the clan.

B. The Plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the annexed real estate list (hereinafter “the annexed real estate list”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff, a clan, for the transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff, was not possible under the Farmland Act, and thus, the transfer of this case to B, which was the representative of the Plaintiff at the time, was held in title. On August 24, 2005, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the transfer of this case under the name of B, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of September 2, 2

C. On December 4, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 67,008,360 on the Plaintiff based on Article 5 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant rice field under the name of the title trustee B following the title trust agreement (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 9 evidence, Eul's 2 to 8 evidence (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not intend to avoid tax evasion, evasion of compulsory execution, or statutory restrictions on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s title trust of the instant answer to B (hereinafter “instant title trust”).

(2) Even if the instant title trust is prohibited under the Real Estate Real Name Act, the Plaintiff did not evade taxes or avoid restrictions pursuant to the laws and regulations. Therefore, the Defendant should impose a penalty surcharge mitigated pursuant to the proviso to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act on the Plaintiff.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. According to Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the Real Estate Real Name Act, real estate owned by "string" is a type of real estate.

arrow