1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around November 6, 2006, a limited liability company B (hereinafter “B”) forged a notification of the repair of D vehicles with a large-scale special-use truck permitted to be supplied by C, the user of which was changed to a general-use truck with limited supply-type truck.

B. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) taken over the instant D vehicle and trucking transport business; (b) changed the said vehicle from B to E (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (c) is running a trucking transport business.

C. Meanwhile, C, who is the actual operator of B, is the above A.

On June 16, 2016, Gwangju District Court (2014No122) sentenced a fine of KRW 10 million on the charge of violating the Trucking Transport Business Act that operated a trucking transport business by illegally increasing the supply-restricted general truck without obtaining permission for alteration in the same manner as the same as the same, and B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million according to the joint penal provisions, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant vehicle was changed to a general truck with limited supply in a special purpose-type truck, such as forging a notice of repair of the vehicle scrapping, and accordingly, (b) rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff for 60 days to stop the operation of the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion B forged the notification of the acceptance of the report on the replacement of the vehicle of this case and illegally increased the ordinary truck, so long as the plaintiff knowingly acquired the above vehicle, it is reasonable to dispose of the suspension of operation against the other vehicle of this case, not the plaintiff, and suffered enormous damages due to the disposition of this case, and whether the defendant illegally increased the vehicle of this case through an inquiry into the register of automobiles, etc.