1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Articles 20(1) and (2), 21(1), 25, 36(1), and 38(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order provide that a party who is dissatisfied with the imposition of an administrative fine may file an objection in writing with the relevant administrative agency within 60 days from the date on which he/she is notified of the imposition of the administrative fine; if an objection is filed, the imposition of the administrative fine shall lose its effect; if an objection is filed, the administrative agency in receipt of the objection shall notify the competent court thereof along with his/her opinion and documentary evidence within 14 days from the date on which he/she receives the objection; and the competent court in receipt of the notification shall render a judgment on the administrative fine

In addition, Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order provides that "any violation of the provisions of this Act among the provisions of other Acts concerning the procedures for the imposition, collection, trial, and enforcement of fines for negligence shall be governed by this Act."

B. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants imposed fines for negligence on the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the propriety of the imposition of fines under the Road Traffic Act, the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Automobile Management Act should be determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order. Thus, the imposition of fines for negligence as stated in the claims cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since all of the lawsuits in this case are unlawful.