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

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the instant disposition on January 10, 2014 when filing an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 7, 2014, in light of: (a) the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,200,00 on the ground that the Plaintiff managed the Seoul Asi outside the garage on January 8, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff paid a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,200,00 to the Defendant on January 13, 2014; and (c) the Plaintiff was aware of the said disposition on January 10, 2014 in the written request for administrative appeal; and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the instant disposition on January 10, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal filed after the lapse of 90 days thereafter is unlawful.

As such, a revocation lawsuit is not deemed to have been re-compliance with the period of filing a lawsuit on the original disposition within 90 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication after a ruling on an illegal administrative appeal filed within 90 days from the date of becoming aware of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18786, Nov. 24, 201). Thus, even if the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within 90 days from the date of receiving a written ruling from the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the period of filing a lawsuit, and thus, is unlawful.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.