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. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for comprehensive inspection of the instant vehicle with respect to the instant vehicle pursuant to Article 43-2 of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 4 of the Regulations on the Implementation, etc. of Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Inspections (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 594, Feb. 2, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) with the Defendant, as the owner of the early 4.5 tons of modern 4.5 tons of a large truck for business purposes.

B. On the same day, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a comprehensive certificate of skills diagnosis on the following day: “As the result of the comprehensive diagnosis of the functions of the instant vehicle,” the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a comprehensive certificate of skills diagnosis of the vehicle that “as the instant vehicle was diagnosed as defective in 10 items, such as “the number, etc. of the vehicle’s operating condition,” such as “the number, etc. of the vehicle’s vehicle to be permitted for the length of the vehicle,” exceeding the permitted height of the vehicle’s body, “the exceeding the permitted height of the vehicle’s vehicle,” “the exceeding the permissible weight of the vehicle

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant notification”). (c)

After that, on June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff was judged to be in conformity with the results of re-inspection conducted by the Daejeon Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., a non-governmental designated motor vehicle comprehensive inspection institute. D.

On February 1, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a comprehensive certificate of skills of automobiles that “as the result of the comprehensive examination of skills of the instant vehicle on February 1, 2016, 3 items, such as “number display operation status,” “the vehicle weight permission exceeds the vehicle weight permission level,” and “less the vehicle parking driving standards” were found to be defective, the Defendant maintained the relevant items by February 11, 2016, and sent to the Plaintiff a comprehensive certificate of skills of the automobile to the inspection office of the Corporation.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 5, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. According to the Defendant’s summary of defense 1 disposition, the instant notification pertaining to the instant vehicle is rendered an inappropriate judgment for comprehensive inspection of the motor vehicle.