1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “No plaintiff may be deemed to have driven the case,” set forth in Articles 8(2) and 420 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the addition of the following:

Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of motor vehicles and horses on the road in accordance with their original use. Article 2 subparag. 17 of the same Act provides that "motor vehicles and horses" means the following motor vehicles and horses, and Article 2 subparag. 18 of the same Act provides that "motor vehicles" means the following motor vehicles that are driven by motor without using a railroad or installed line. Thus, the term "motor vehicle" means any motor, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs. Thus, it is necessary to use the motor first to fall under the use of the motor, i.e., the motor vehicle according to its original usage. In addition, in light of the original function of the motor vehicle and the legislative purport of the Road Traffic Act, it is insufficient to say that the driver starting the motor vehicle engine, i.e., the completion of the so-called operation motor vehicle operation engine with the intent and intention to operate the motor vehicle, and the act of parking the motor vehicle is completed with the alteration of the motor vehicle by any other method than the foregoing (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4098, Dec. 29, 30, 29, 19, 200.