위반차량 운행정지처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On Nov. 2, 2006, the “Trackor”, which was manufactured on Nov. 2, 2006, was newly registered as C in the name of the South Sea Special Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Sea Special”) on Jan. 2, 2007, and the registration was changed to B in the name of the Plaintiff on Nov. 12, 2006.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”). (b)
The Plaintiff was running a trucking transport business under the trade name of “D” from February 199, and continued to use the said vehicle after obtaining a partial license for the transport and registration of the instant vehicle from the special South Sea at the time of the registration of modification as above.
C. On the other hand, in around 2006, the instant vehicle was permitted to change the freight trucking service with oil trucking tank, and the said vehicle was registered as a towing special motor vehicle, by unlawful means. D.
On November 8, 2013, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Provincial Police Agency notified the head of Si/Gun of his/her special zone and his/her representative being suspected of violating the Trucking Transport Business Act, on the grounds that the registration of 47 Tracers whose new permission is prohibited was carried out by improper means.
E. On April 26, 2016, the head of Si/Gun issued a notification to the Defendant on April 26, 2016, of the violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act that “the instant vehicle registered as towing special vehicle was transferred at Jeju by any unlawful means after obtaining permission for alteration of the tank for oil transport,” and the Defendant ordered the suspension of operation for the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff for 60 days (from June 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016) in accordance with Article 19(1)2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, etc. of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Act”).
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [The ground for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply).