Maximum Country (Attorney Park Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorneys Han Han-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 8, 1984

The defendant's refusal of registration against the plaintiff on June 2, 1982 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Considering the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1, No. 5-1, and No. 3 through No. 10, for which there is no dispute in the establishment, the defendant, on June 2, 1982, can recognize the fact that the plaintiff rejected the registration of the vehicle in this case on the ground that the plaintiff cannot obtain the registration unless there is any counter-proof, because the plaintiff's application for registration of the vehicle listed in the annexed sheet No. 151 on May 2, 1982 (hereinafter in this case) for the extension of personal taxi license and the increase of the number of vehicles for excellent designated enterprises pursuant to the comprehensive improvement plan of Do school No. 1514-451 on April 26, 1982.

The plaintiff's rejection of the above-mentioned vehicle's 8-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-8-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6--7-8-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6--7-8-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-7-8-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7

When filing an application for a new registration of a motor vehicle, the defendant's attorney is required to attach the manufacture certificates and preliminary inspection certificates as stipulated in Articles 7 and 59 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act to the application form, and the plaintiff asserted that the rejection disposition of the defendant's registration of the motor vehicle of this case is legitimate since the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the motor vehicle without attaching these documents. However, the defendant's testimony of the witness Kim Un-de's testimony that seems consistent with the above facts is not believed in light of the descriptions as stated in subparagraphs 5-1 and 3 through 10 of the above evidence and the witness's testimony, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant

Therefore, since the defendant's rejection disposition of vehicle registration of this case is illegal, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of this case is justified as there is no need to judge the remaining arguments, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

March 29, 1984

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)