Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(2) The plaintiff's attorney first issued an administrative disposition on three vehicles belonging to the plaintiff's school passenger. The plaintiff's trade name is school traffic corporation, and there is no school passenger's transport business entity on the road surface. Thus, the administrative disposition is null and void because it is an unlawful act of specifying the target company. Second, even though the vehicle allocated to the plaintiff company on the transmission-Viewing system is only two vehicles, the defendant issued an administrative disposition on three vehicles operating the system. This disposition is illegal. Third, the plaintiff's specific purpose of the target vehicle is to set up at the front point of the urban bus route authorized by the authority, and the office and its incidental facilities are not arbitrarily relocated to the same place of business, and since it is subject to the permission on the operation of the same place of business, this disposition does not cause inconvenience to the people in light of the fact that the main office, the garage and its incidental facilities are installed and its incidental facilities are moved out to the public due to the reduction of the amount of the administrative disposition or the reduction of the amount of the administrative disposition.

First of all, in light of the whole purport of the oral argument as to the above first claim, the defendant can recognize the fact that the student passenger of the administrative disposition dated October 29, 1982 changed to the school sexual traffic of the corporation on September 29, 1982, and there is no counter-proof, the first claim is without merit.

Then, according to the records of Gap evidence No. 1-2 and Eul evidence No. 1.3 as to the above second ground, it is found that the defendant issued an administrative disposition on Sep. 29, 1982 against three vehicles with three vehicles operating the transmission-Viewing system routes among the vehicles belonging to the plaintiff company, and there is no counter-proof, and the vehicle belonging to the plaintiff company, which is allocated and operated on the above line in full view of the whole purport of the oral argument in the above Gap evidence No. 8, has no counter-proof and no further counter-proof, and the above Gap evidence No. 1-2 did not specify the number of the vehicle subject to the administrative disposition, and the execution order No. 1-2 stated only as the voluntary suspension of operation, and at least in the execution order No. 1-2 stated as the "Ulsan" column, it cannot be deemed that the above two vehicles can be executed with the specific vehicle subject to the administrative disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the execution officer of the above two vehicles cannot be seen as being invalid.

(3) If so, the defendant's objection to the administrative disposition is null and void without determining the remainder of the above claims. Thus, the plaintiff's objection seeking the revocation of the invalidation declaration is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

June 7, 1983

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)