logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.20 2015구합69881
화물자동차운송사업불허가처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to freight trucking services rendered against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On February 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) held a title trust of the truck (registration number B: Sknictor, chassis number C: hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (b) concluded a contract under which a truck transport business using the instant vehicle is entrusted (a continuous entry contract; hereinafter “title trust and entrustment contract”) with a third-party company; (c) made a cargo transport business using the instant vehicle; (d) concluded a title trust and the above entrustment contract with a third-party company (around February 2003, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a title trust and the above entrustment contract with a third-party company (around March 2005). (c) concluded a title trust and the above entrustment contract with a third party company, a second-party company, a joint logistics company, and entered into a title trust and the above entrustment contract.

B. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Pyeongtaek General Logistics Co., Ltd. to demand the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration regarding the instant vehicle on the grounds of title trust and the termination of the entrustment contract (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da104633). On May 29, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment on May 29, 2015 that “The Jeju General Logistics Co., Ltd. shall implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the instant vehicle on April 6, 2015,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2015.

C. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for trucking transport business, and on July 22, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of nonpermission on the ground that “The Plaintiff does not constitute a person subject to the instant supplementary provision (hereinafter “instant supplementary provision”) under Article 3(2) of the Addenda of the Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7100, Jan. 20, 2004; wholly amended by Act No. 8979, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Transport Business Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) . [Grounds for recognition].

arrow