1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A’s illegal increase 1) A is a stock company B (hereinafter “B”).

On March 2009, while engaging in trucking transport business, around March 2009, in the case of permission for trucking transport business, there is no limit on the number of permissions. A prepared a false sales contract and applied for increase of the number of tanks, which are special-purpose trucking trucks, as if they were purchased due to business necessity. D, who is a public official in charge of truck registration of the Gu Office, obtained a permit for increase of the number without additional documents, and registered a 176 vehicle registration number in total, and then changed the number to a general truck with limited number of permissions under several laws, such as the creation of the 176 vehicle registration number and the alteration of the notification of large-scale repair, and then transferred the number of vehicles registration numbers, etc. connected to the above illegal permit for trucking transport business, and distributed them for consideration. A was found guilty on October 27, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the above crime of violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and the judgment of the competent District Court became final and conclusive.

B. 1) The Plaintiffs are companies running trucking transport business, etc., and among the vehicles illegally increased by A as seen above, the Plaintiff forest transport business, the Plaintiff forest transport business, and the Plaintiff Daeho-ho et al. (hereinafter the above two vehicles are collectively referred to as the “each of the instant vehicles”).

(2) At that time, H entered into an entrustment contract with the Plaintiff Forest Transport and received the operation and management right of the Plaintiff Forest Transport and received the operation right of the said vehicle from the Plaintiff Forest Transport, and thereafter, H used the said vehicle for oil by obtaining an oil purchase card in its name as an entrusted owner operator while operating the said vehicle.

The defendant is H-H.