The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purpose of the fuel subsidy system and the purport of relevant provisions of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 13382, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Trucking Transport Business Act”), the reason that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may determine to be excluded from the amount of fuel subsidies upon delegation from the amount of fuel subsidies pursuant to the latter part of Article 43(2) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act is limited to the reasons contrary to the purpose of the fuel subsidy system, such as the cases where the payment of fuel subsidies cannot be deemed a legitimate truck operation pursuant to the former Trucking Transport Business Act, or where illegal payment of fuel subsidies has been involved. Therefore, Article 28(1)12 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 2014-376, Jun. 26, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”) provides that “where a cargo transport refuses or obstructs the national logistics system” is excluded from the amount of fuel subsidies to be delegated (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”).

(2) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of delegated legislation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of delegated legislation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.