1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around October 2012, the Plaintiff reported the transfer or acquisition of a trucking transport business (part of the instant vehicle) to the Defendant as the final transferee of the vehicle A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle on the ground that “the instant vehicle was illegally increased by filing a report on the supply of the instant vehicle for the special purpose-use-use-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-of-sale-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type (hereinafter “instant-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-of

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and relevant statutes.

On the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) Article 16(4) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act provides a comprehensive provision on the succession to the status of a transport business entity by a transferee, but does not provide for the separate provision on the succession to the status of a transport business entity. Therefore, it should be interpreted limited to the validity of the above provision. The instant disposition was unlawful as it was against the Plaintiff who was unaware of the fact that the instant vehicle was illegally increased. (2) The Defendant is the instant vehicle.