화물자동차 운수사업법 위반차량 감차조치 처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. The former owners of each truck listed in the separate sheet in the annexed sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant truck”) acquired by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant truck”) obtained permission from May 14, 2010 to May 23, 2013 as stated in the annexed sheet No. 1, and thereafter illegally increased the instant truck by attaching the registration number to the ordinary truck with limited supply registration number.
(A) No. 2, 4 pages).
The Plaintiff is a trucking transport business operator who engages in a general cargo transport business, and finally takes over the instant cargo vehicle from (oilB, etc.) and reported the transfer or acquisition of the instant cargo transport business to the Defendant.
C. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant issued the following dispositions to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2017 (hereinafter “the first disposition”), and the Plaintiff fully implemented the first disposition by April 3, 2017.
Article 16(4), Article 19(1)2, and Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”); and Article 27782 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27782, Jan. 10, 2017; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act”).
(1) Article 5(1) [Attachment 1] Subparag. 2 of the instant truck’s disposition is a general type in which the supply of the instant truck, which was a special purpose truck that is permissible from May 14, 2010 to May 23, 2013, is not allowed (the details of the instant truck’s disposition were illegally increased by filing a report on the scrapping of the instant truck’s car in lieu of it), and the suspension of operation of the instant truck 60 days.
D. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice and rendered the following dispositions to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2017:
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff, even after the first disposition, maintains a cargo lane in which the supply of the instant cargo is limited.