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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows: (a) the court used “D” of the second and seventh parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance as “E” and (b) added the contents of the second and second parallel of the judgment to “E”; and (c) therefore, the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is null and void, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is void.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case was legally delivered to the plaintiff and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed with the lapse of the filing period.

(b) even in the case of filing an administrative suit claiming its revocation within the meaning of declaring the invalidity of the judgment administrative disposition, it must meet the requirements for filing a suit, such as compliance with the

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Nu175 delivered on May 29, 1984). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court and the evidence adopted by this court and the circumstances cited by the first instance court cited earlier, it is deemed that the instant disposition became effective by the Defendant’s issuing the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on March 19, 2005 and then by delivering the notice of disposition to the Plaintiff around that time.

Inasmuch as the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of more than nine years thereafter, it is apparent that the period for filing the lawsuit has lapsed.

It is also clear that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit 90 days after the date the plaintiff became aware of the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

① On January 18, 2005, prior to the instant disposition, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the holding of the hearing for the instant disposition (Evidence No. 9). Around March 18, 2005, prior to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment on the revocation of the revocation of the instant license (Seoul Administrative Court 2005Gudan329).