1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs transportation business, etc.

B. On March 10, 2009, Taedo LSS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul LSS”) entered into a false sales contract as if it purchased A truck from Gangwon-do Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KDF”) and increased the number of 72 trucks using the said truck’s chassis number. The B truck (hereinafter “Seoul number truck”) is one of the trucks registered in Taiwan LS future.

C. On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired part of the trucking transport business from Taedok LS and registered the Seoul numbering truck as C Trucks owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant truck”).

On February 4, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff succeeded to the status as a trucking business operator by taking over a truck illegally registered (certified) by such unlawful means as above,” and that “the instant disposition to reduce the number of trucks (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition to reduce the number of trucks not later than March 3, 2015,” in accordance with Articles 19(1)2, 3(3), and 16(4) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and Article 13(1) of the Automobile Management Act.”

[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition on the following grounds.

Since Taedok LS only substituted the Seoul number truck which had already been possessed with the permission using the game number truck before the prohibition of the scrapping of the car to a general truck using a special purpose truck, it does not constitute an illegal increase in the number.

B. Mandodo ELSA, even if so.