logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2014구합6334
화물자동차운송사업불허처분 취소
Text

1. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant’s truck indicated in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant truck as the ground of termination of the entrusted management contract with respect to the instant truck under the Suwon District Court, Seoul District Court Decision 2014Kadan4147, which was the owner of the truck indicated in the separate sheet of the truck indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as “instant truck”). On May 21, 2014, the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and New Linju District Co., Ltd. on May 21, 2014, between the Plaintiff and new Linju District Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 5 million by June 30, 2014, as well as the Plaintiff for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant truck.

On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the above adjusted amount of KRW 5,00,000 to the New Lane Co., Ltd.

B. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for trucking transport business with respect to the instant truck (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on the basis of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Act No. 11064, Sept. 16, 2011; hereinafter “instant Addenda”). However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on September 3, 2014, on the ground that “it is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff entered into the instant entrustment contract with the trucking transport business entity on or before January 20, 204, and carried out an automatic cargo transport business as the entrusted owner.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On September 16, 1994, the Plaintiff’s assertion is a trucking transport business entity, a trucking transport business entity, under title trust of the instant truck. Since the consignment of trucking transport business, until the title trust and the termination of the consignment contract with the New License Stock Company.

arrow