beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.12.12 2019구합6555

행정처분취소 청구의 소

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 obtained a license for cargo transportation services from the Defendant with the main office as a corporation whose business purpose is the trucking business of automobiles, etc. as its main office, and as its main office as its main office.

나. 광주시는 2019. 5. 28. C, D, E, F(이하 ‘C 등’이라 한다)로부터 ‘원고 등이 영업소 설치 허가를 받지 않고 주사무소 외의 장소인 광주시 G 빌딩 H호(이하 ‘이 사건 장소’라 한다)에서 영업행위를 하였다‘는 취지의 민원신고(이하 ‘이 사건 민원신고’라 한다)를 받고, 같은 달 29. 이 사건 장소에 대한 현장 확인을 하였으며, 2019. 6. 5. 위 민원신고를 관할관청인 피고로 이첩(移牒)하였다.

C. On June 11, 2019, the Defendant inspected the instant place and the Plaintiff’s Cheongju Branch on the site, and notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition on June 24, 201.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff presented its opinion to the Defendant on July 11, 2019.

On August 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) violated the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) (or (or (or (or (or (or) a trucking business operator with at least two trucked vehicles resides in a place other than his/her principal office without obtaining permission to establish his/her business office under Article 3(11)); (b) against the Plaintiff on the ground of the violation of Article 11 and 19 of the said Act; and (c) and Article 5(1) [Attachment I] of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act and subordinate statutes on the basis of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, issued a disposition of partial suspension of business to the Plaintiff 28 (or (or (or (or) the instant disposition) on the ground that a trucking business operator with at least two trucked vehicles resides in a place other than his/her principal office).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion violated the principle of misunderstanding of facts and proportionality as follows and abused discretion.

1) An erroneous determination of facts;