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 reasons why the court stated this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance).

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1) assertion that the instant special vehicle did not fall under the scrapping of a substitute is indicated in the notification of repair of a substitute-type vehicle, but the fact that the salvage type was stipulated in the notification of repair of a substitute-type vehicle is merely the vehicle number for a new towing type. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful. Thus, even if the instant special vehicle was not subject to the permission of alteration but subject to the notification of alteration, even if it was alleged that it was a substitute-type special vehicle for a salvage type, the instant special vehicle was reported to substitute the substitute-type special vehicle for a towing type (hereinafter “the instant substitute-type vehicle”), which was a special vehicle for a salvage type, the supply of which was restricted, and thus, it is not subject to the permission of alteration under the Trucking Transport Business Act, and it is nothing more than the object of the report of alteration.

In addition, the "Detailed Guidelines for Handling Trucking Business", which the Defendant used as the basis for the disposition of the instant case, is merely an internal guidelines of the administrative agency without delegation of higher statutes, and thus has no legal effect.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was imposed on the premise that the car scrapping of this case is subject to the permission of change, is illegal in view of an illegal increase in the number of lanes.

3. Public view that the Busan Metropolitan City Freight Trucking Association entrusted with the authority to report and accept the scrapping of the truck alleged in violation of the principle of protection of trust is legitimate by accepting the report on the scrapping of the instant scrapping.