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

The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on May 20, 2014, as indicated in the “Contents of Disposition” column of Attached Table 1, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition on May 20, 2014 in the attached Table 1 that "disposition" against the plaintiff on May 20, 2014 shall revoke each disposition on suspension of the whole business and suspension of payment of fuel subsidies.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim for restitution of the original state and the cancellation of the recovery of the fuel subsidy, and dismissed the remainder of the plaintiff's claim (the full suspension of the business and the claim for cancellation of the suspension of payment of fuel subsidy). Accordingly, the judgment of this court is limited to the part against which the plaintiff lost, that is, to the part against which the plaintiff lost, the entire suspension of business and the claim for cancellation

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence No. 11-1 and No. 2 submitted in the first instance trial are examined with respect to the same issue (Seoul High Court Decisions 2014Nu4239, Jan. 23, 2015; 2015Du38535, Jun. 11, 2015), the judgment of the first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the payment suspension of fuel subsidies is justifiable.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents or addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff's additional assertion as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. As such, the court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

The last sentence of the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is " Trucking Transport Business Act" as "former Trucking Transport Business Act", and the third first sentence of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as " Trucking Business Act") is "(the Act was amended by Act No. 13382, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter referred to as " Trucking Business Act")."

[Article 64(1) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 15(1)1 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act] of the fifth fourth column of the judgment of the first instance [Article 64(1) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 15(1)1 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26251, May 26, 2015; hereinafter the same)] of the fourth column [Article 64(1) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 15(1)

○ The first part of the 7th judgment of the first instance court is "Special Motor Vehicle (Traler)" as "Special Motor Vehicle (Traler)".

Article 12 of the Decision 12 of the first instance court's decision "(attached Form 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Truck Act)" is "attached Form 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1 on March 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)", and the "vehicle scrapping" of the Fifth Reduction is different from "vehicle scrapping".

Article 18 of the first instance court's decision that "The defendant, in the case of a vehicle entering the third branch, directly transfers a fuel subsidy to the deposit account of a branch owner's bank, it is not different even if the defendant remitted it to the deposit account of the branch owner's bank." The third branch owner's receipt of a fuel subsidy due to the receipt of the fuel subsidy through an oil purchase card issued in his/her name, etc., in the case of a branch owner's vehicle. However, even if the branch owner received a direct profit from the payment of the fuel subsidy, this is merely an attempt to vest profits accruing from the payment of the fuel subsidy to the branch owner's owner who actually bears the fuel subsidy according to the terms of the branch entry contract between the plaintiff and the branch owner, and it is not different even if the defendant directly wired the fuel subsidy to the deposit account of the branch owner."

Article 25 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance provides that "The Gun Office Act" shall be "the former Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13382, Jun. 22, 2015); the 26th "Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act" shall be "the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26251, May 26, 2015)"; and the 28th reduction "Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 430, Dec. 31, 201)" shall be "the former Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 130, Mar. 23, 2013)."

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Attached Table 1), which was amended and implemented on May 26, 2015, after the Defendant issued the full suspension of business against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant suspension of business”), the criteria for disposition in the event that permission for alteration is modified without obtaining permission for alteration under the Trucking Transport Business Act were somewhat changed to “60 days when the first violation occurred,” and the relevant provisions were applied retroactively to the previous violation pursuant to the relevant provisions. Therefore, the instant suspension of business pursuant to such retroactive effect constitutes a case where there was no legal basis for the disposition from the time of the enforcement.

B. Determination

Generally, the standard point of determining the legitimacy of an administrative disposition in an appeal litigation is not the market price of judgment, but the legality of an administrative disposition is determined based on the relevant law and fact-finding at the time when the disposition was taken, barring special circumstances, and it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of statutes or changes in the actual state (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4464, Oct. 25, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2006Nu469, Oct. 19, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2006Nu469, Oct. 19, 2006). Thus, the law at the time of an administrative disposition should be applied in accordance with the above legal principles in cases where there is a problem as to which law

In this case, Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act, which was amended and implemented on May 26, 2015, after the disposition, provides that "if permission for modification is obtained in a fraudulent manner, or permission for modification is modified without obtaining permission for modification, 60 days for the suspension of operation at the time of the first violation". Article 2 of the Addenda provides that "The amended provisions of subparagraphs 2 and 14 of attached Table 1 and subparagraph 9 of attached Table 4 shall apply to cases where permission, etc. is revoked than at the time of the disposition of the suspension of operation of the instant case." However, the legality of administrative disposition shall be determined based on the Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the disposition of the suspension of operation of the instant case, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, as at the time of the disposition of the suspension of operation of the instant case, it cannot be determined based on the amended Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition suspending the business of this case is legitimate in applying the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act, which is the law at the time of the disposition suspending the business of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the suspension of the business of this case and the claim for the cancellation of the suspension of payment of fuel subsidies is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges, public officials (Presiding Judge) will be appointed in the future;