The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each vehicle B and C.

B. As to each of the above vehicles, the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 900,000 on December 30, 2008 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not purchase a mandatory insurance policy under Article 5 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. (2) On the ground that the Plaintiff did not undergo a regular inspection under Article 43(1)2 of the Automobile Management Act, the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 300,000 on each of the above vehicles.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 300,00,00 on August 30, 2013, and KRW 300,000 on September 30, 2013, and KRW 170,00 on November 1, 2013, respectively, under the circumstances where additional charges are added due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay each imposition of the said administrative fine by each due date. After that, the Defendant collected KRW 730,00,000 on July 3, 2018, including each additional charge, for the seizure of the land and the deposit claim, etc. owned by the Plaintiff, and further, collected KRW 510,00 on August 3, 2018, including each additional charge.

Ultimately, the Defendant received a total of KRW 4,205,880 (= KRW 300,000 KRW 300,000 KRW 170,000 KRW 730,000) from the Plaintiff regarding the imposition of each of the above fines for negligence ( KRW 2,705,370).

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the imposition of each of the above administrative fines, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on March 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On May 4, 2008, the gist of the party’s assertion is that the Plaintiff subscribed to liability insurance with respect to each of the above vehicles, and that the Defendant’s imposition of the Defendant’s fine for negligence due to the delay in the inspection of a motor vehicle is contrary to equity. As such, the Defendant appears to have made an error of “4,205,881 won” in the Plaintiff’s assertion that was erroneously paid or overpaid due to administrative error, which appears to be “4,205,880 won.”

this article argues that all amounts must be returned.

In regard to this, the defendant cannot be seen as an administrative disposition that is subject to administrative litigation. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is filed.