1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is as follows: (a) the term “1357 installments” of the 4th class 4th class 14, 6th class 7th class 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be respectively dismissed “1,357 times”; and (b) the argument that the plaintiff addss to this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments: (c) therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article

Additional Judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is an infringing administrative act, the Defendant did not state specific reasons in the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition violates Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

B. 1) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall, when taking a disposition, present the grounds and reasons therefor to the parties. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and to enable the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents stated in the written disposition, related statutes, and the overall process, etc. up to the relevant disposition, where it is sufficiently known that the parties to the disposition were made for any reason, and where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to the party’s objection to taking the disposition into the administrative remedy procedure, it cannot be said that the disposition is unlawful due to such failure, even if the grounds and reasons for the disposition are not specified in the written disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18571, Nov. 14, 2013). 2)

Although the Plaintiff was in the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s indictment was suspended or arrest warrant was issued due to a crime corresponding to a punishment for a maximum period of not less than three years.”