2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. On October 21, 2016, the Rescue Service Council requested the Defendant to order the suspension of the operation of the motor vehicle registration number B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant motor vehicle”).

B. On November 4, 2016, the Defendant ordered the suspension of operation of the instant motor vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed an administrative appeal on February 17, 2017, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 24, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1, 3, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1, 2, and 5 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it failed to observe the filing period.

(b) Action for cancellation of judgment shall be brought within 90 days after the date on which the disposition is known, and one year after the date on which the disposition is made.

Provided, That where an administrative appeal has been filed against a disposition, an action shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receiving the original copy of the written adjudication on administrative appeal and within one year from the date of

(1) Article 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall be served with the original copy of the instant written ruling on May 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have filed the instant lawsuit on December 10, 2017, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, and the purport of the written evidence and the entire pleadings.”

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it was filed after 90 days have passed since the original copy of the written ruling of this case was served.

The Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant motor vehicle, and thus the Plaintiff and the Appointor asserted that the instant disposition is unreasonable.

Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Management Act shall apply to the operation of automobiles by a motor vehicle owner or a motor vehicle owner.