The adequacy of an application for mid-term registration filed with respect to a mid-term period manufactured and assembled without type approval in Korea by attaching a part of a Japanese unit for new goods imported into the first half of the second half of the public auction, attaching a certificate of successful bid in the public auction and a certificate of import.

In full view of the provisions of Article 3, Article 5(1)4, Article 13, and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mid-Term Management Act, documents evidencing the source of the mid-term period to be submitted at the time of an application for the mid-term registration shall not be for the mid-term period, but for the mid-term period itself, and it shall be interpreted as for the mid-term period itself, as completed goods, and it shall not be registered regardless of whether the performance of which is completed in the Republic of Korea is in conformity with the standards, and it shall be manufactured by assembling and attaching engine parts and other parts to the mid-term medium-term vehicle without obtaining type approval for the mid-term period. As such, it shall not be permitted to accept the registration of the mid-term Enforcement Decree of the mid-term Management Act by attaching the parts of the first half-term engine of the new products imported into the middle-term class, the first half-term, the second-term vehicle, and the first half-term engine parts manufactured and assembled without type approval in Korea.

Article 3, Article 5 of the Act, Article 13 of the same Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

Choi Jin-gu

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 2, 198 against the plaintiff on December 2, 198 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff purchased the above evidence 2-1, 2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-6, Eul evidence 2-3, 5-5, and Eul evidence 6-2, 6-1, 2-7, and 7-1, 2, and 7-2 of the evidence 6-1, and the above witness and witness 9-2's testimony for the above 8-1, 3-1, 3-2 of the above 9-1, and 9-7's testimony for the above 9-1, 3-1, and 9-7's testimony for the above 9-6-1, the above 9-2's testimony for the above 1-6-1, 1987's testimony for the above 1-2, and the above 9-2's testimony for the above 1-1, 3-1, 3-1, 1987's testimony for the above 1-2, 3-1, and 9-1,2'2'2,0007,00.

2. Accordingly, the plaintiff purchased the first half of the first half of the first half of the second half of the second half of the second half and installed a new product engine imported therefrom from a government office, and it cannot be deemed that it manufactured and assembled in Korea. Thus, in applying for registration of the second half of the year in this case, the plaintiff filed an application for registration with all the required documents under Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the mid-term Management Act, and even if not, prohibiting the second half of the second half from being manufactured and assembled by a person who did not make a manufacture and assembly registration is merely merely a simple regulation regulation, and can be confirmed by the new registration inspection, and thus, the disposition rejecting the application for registration of the second half of the second half of the year without having a new registration inspection is unlawful. The defendant asserts that the above application for registration violates the provisions of Article 13 of the mid-Term Management Act and Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree, and thus, the above rejection disposition is appropriate.

Article 3 of the mid-term Management Act provides that the owner of the mid-term machinery shall apply for the registration of the mid-term machinery to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The Mayor and Do governor in receipt of an application for registration shall issue a mid-term registration certificate after conducting an inspection. Article 5 (1) 4 of the same Act provides that if the mid-term machinery price is different from that of the mid-term machinery at the time of registration, a person who intends to manufacture or assemble mid-term machinery shall register on the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and if he/she manufactures or assembles mid-term machinery, he/she shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the form of the mid-term machinery, and if he/she proves that the mid-term machinery is not suitable for the registration of the mid-term machinery machinery, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall cancel the relevant form of the mid-term Construction and Transportation among the machinery manufactured or assembled, regardless of the details of approval, and that the mid-term machinery is not the same among the new machinery.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant's return disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jin-General (Presiding Judge)