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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are included in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement and addition of judgment as follows 2, but the "4. conclusion" portion is the same as the excluded part, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. According to Article 18(3)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “when an administrative appeal has already been dismissed with respect to the same type of case,” the revocation suit may be instituted without filing an administrative appeal. Since there are multiple rulings on rejection of the administrative appeal regarding the same case as to the case, “a subsequent shareholder under title trust,” the issues of this case are the same, the Plaintiff may institute a revocation suit without filing an administrative appeal pursuant to Article 18(3)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and (2) pursuant to Article 18(2)4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Plaintiff may institute a revocation suit without filing an administrative appeal. However, according to Article 18(2)4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Plaintiff may institute a revocation suit without filing an administrative appeal. While the △△△△△ was served with the Defendant, without submitting a written answer within the deadline for submission, without submitting a written answer to the Plaintiff, and without stating that “it is impossible to institute an administrative litigation without filing an administrative appeal” under Article 18(3)4) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, even if it did not go through the procedure of the previous trial, the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.