1. The Defendant’s fuel subsidies for six months (from January 11, 2016 to July 10, 2016) granted to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016.

Details of the disposition

On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A for the management of trucking vehicles B (number C: hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with A, and managed the instant vehicle upon entrustment.

On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against A for the performance of the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant vehicle on the ground of the termination of the entrusted management contract (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da5990, Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Da590), and received a favorable judgment on September 10, 2015.

On January 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the payment of fuel subsidies for six months (from January 11, 2016 to July 10, 2016) pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) and Articles 28 and 29 of the Regulations on the Management of Fuel Subsidies (hereinafter “Rules on the Management of Fuel Subsidies”), on the ground that B vehicles have fallen in excess of tank capacity by settling credit mainly and collectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the other hand, around January 21, 2016, A newly concluded an entrustment contract concerning the instant vehicle with a limited liability company and accordingly changed the registration number of the instant vehicle to D.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5, and the plaintiff's assertion that disposition of the whole purport of the pleadings is legitimate, and under the plaintiff's Trucking Transport Act and the fuel subsidy management regulations, measures such as suspending the payment of fuel subsidies to the entrusted owner operator. Since the defendant made the disposition of this case against the plaintiff as well as Gap who is the entrusted owner operator, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Article 31(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Subsidies for the defendant's assertion that "the owner of a cargo who is subject to administrative sanctions shall transfer the business to another person and succeed to the merger.