1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,500,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on November 22, 2017, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The plaintiff is a trucking business operator who has obtained permission for a general trucking transport business under Article 3 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008).

In November 22, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 2.5 million on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 19(1)3 of the Trucking Transport Business Act and Article 7(1) [Attachment Table 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29028, Jul. 3, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the minimum transport obligation under Article 47-2(2) of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”).

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Article 11-2(1) of the Plaintiff’s Claim Trucking Transport Business Act imposes a trucking business operator a duty of direct transport on the cargo for which a transport business operator entered into a transport contract with the owner of the cargo. Article 47-2(2) of the Trucking Transport Business Act imposes a trucking business operator who has a direct transport duty under Article 11-2(1) of the Trucking Transport Business Act a minimum transport duty to transport the cargo exceeding a certain standard prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Therefore, a trucking business operator is obliged to impose a direct transport duty under Article 11-2(1) of the Trucking Transport Business Act

However, since the Plaintiff did not enter into a cargo transport contract with the owner of the goods in 2016, the Plaintiff does not bear such direct transport obligation and minimum transport obligation.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken by the Plaintiff by deeming that it violated the minimum transportation duty in 2016 was unlawful as the grounds for such disposition did not exist.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

(c) administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for judgment-based administrative dispositions.