1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is running B truck (hereinafter “instant automobile”) while operating the “subsidiary logistics of a stock company,” which is a cargo transport company, after registering the business of the freight transport business.

From March 2, 2014 to March 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the recovery of the fuel subsidy amounting to KRW 783,400, and the suspension of payment of the fuel subsidy for six months on the ground that the Plaintiff received the fuel subsidy by the method of receiving the fuel subsidy, and then the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the recovery of the fuel subsidy amounting to KRW 669,712, which is the total amount of the fuel payment for the relevant oil trading case, and the Plaintiff submitted his opinion by no later than April 11, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover fuel subsidies of KRW 783,400 and a disposition to suspend the payment of fuel subsidies for six months (from May 20, 2016 to November 19, 2016) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ Trucking Transport Business Act”), Article 9-15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and Articles 28 and 29 of the Management Regulations for Trucking Subsidies (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Regulations”).

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, including the restitution disposition and the suspension of payment of subsidies, was made by means of an oil purchase card; (b) there was no dispute regarding the instant disposition; (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 4; and (d) evidence Nos. 1 through 1; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) whether the instant disposition is lawful; (c) the Plaintiff received the fuel subsidy after paying it by using an oil purchase card; (d) however, in light of the following: (e) the amount softened is a small amount; (e) the purchase price of consumed goods necessary for vehicle operation; and (e) the amount of the

It is as shown in the attached Form of relevant statutes.

Judgment

The Plaintiff received oil subsidies by releasing the oil actually paid to the instant automobile in excess of the actual volume of oil oil.