1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination parts, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The decision on addition (the decision on the plaintiff's assertion of addition to the trial)

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Criteria for Registration of Motor Vehicle Management Business (Ordinance No. 5487) provides that “the place of business which has obtained a building permit for the registration of motor vehicle transaction business shall apply the previous provisions” so as to apply the previous provisions before the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Management Act in the same case as D building, clearly interpret the scope of the amendment of the said Enforcement Rule. Therefore, even in the Plaintiff, an application for registration of

② The above Seoul Special Metropolitan City Municipal Ordinance provides that the previous Enforcement Rule shall apply to the buildings identical to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s assertion that the application for registration of a motor vehicle management business is rejected due to the lack of such ordinance is illegal and unreasonable, which imposes an administrative fine on citizens, and thus contravenes the good faith principle.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the facts and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is not subject to protection pursuant to the supplementary provision, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s application of the revised provision to the instant disposition is contrary to the good faith principle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected

(1) Unlike the Addenda to the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance, there is no provision that "any workplace which has obtained a building permit for the registration of motor vehicle transaction business shall be subject to the previous provisions", and therefore, the contrary interpretation.