beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an entrusted owner operator entrusted with the right to manage the instant trucking cargo transportation services by investing in kind in the company B (hereinafter “instant truck”) according to the management-related entrustment agreement entered into with the Geum River Logistics Co., Ltd., and is entrusted with the right to manage the instant trucking cargo transportation services by the said company.
B. From April 29, 2015 to July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the oil price as a lump sum at the end of each month and received the fuel subsidy.
C. On July 16, 2017, the Defendant entered only Article 44-2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act on the suspension of payment of fuel subsidies, Article 9-15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act on the ground that “the supply and demand of fuel subsidies due to excess of tank capacity (from April 29, 2015 to July 1, 2016)” with respect to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2017, the Defendant omitted Article 44 of the Trucking Transport Business Act on the grounds that “the supply and demand of fuel subsidies due to excess of tank capacity” (hereinafter “ Trucking Act”).
In the process of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff sufficiently known that the instant disposition was a disposition suspending payment of fuel subsidies and a disposition recovering fuel subsidies, and thus, it does not constitute a procedural defect in the instant disposition.
Pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Act, Article 9-15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Act, Article 28 and Article 29 of the Regulations on the Management of Trucking Subsidies (hereinafter “Management Regulations”), the Plaintiff issued a disposition of recovery of KRW 16,55,330 of the subsidy granted to the primary oil limited company from April 29, 2015 to July 1, 2016, and suspension of payment of fuel subsidies for six months (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).
The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Commission.