1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that provides cargo transport services.

On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired 47 freight cars listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant freight cars”) from the Mandow Co., Ltd., and changed the registration number while registering the transfer of ownership. After completing the report on the transfer to the competent authorities, the Plaintiff owned each of the instant freight cars until now.

(A) Evidence Nos. 5, 7, s. 7, and s. f.b.

From April 12, 2009 to November 9, 201, the illegal scrapping and increase of the cargo vehicles of this case by a limited liability company, which are limited to the supply of each of the instant cargo vehicles in the same manner as the attached Table 1 list, was reduced or decreased.

(C) there is no dispute.

(1) On December 16, 2015, the Defendant: “The freight of the instant case constitutes an illegal scrapping and increased vehicle; and the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the transferor who committed the instant violation, as to each of the instant freight of the instant case, 60 days (hereinafter “the suspension of operation”) of the suspension of operation on the ground that the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the transferor who committed the instant violation.”

(2) On July 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover a fuel subsidy (No. 1, 2) and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2015Guhap13665 against the foregoing disposition. However, the said litigation procedure was deemed to have been withdrawn on June 23, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s absence on the three-time basis (the fact that there is no dispute). (2) On July 4, 2016, the Defendant set the enforcement period of 60 days from August 5, 2016 to October 3, 2016 and notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of operation of the violating vehicle.

(Evidence 9) / [Evidence 9] / [Ground for Recognition] , Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 7 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition suspending the operation of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition No. 1 does not have obtained permission to change the cargo of this case by improper means, and the whole of each of the vehicles of this case.