1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

B A around September 14, 2012, around September 14, 2012, a company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was registered as a controlling shareholder [ownership shares: 14,500 shares (46.78%). Around that time, the company was appointed as an internal director of the said company.

The Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor revoked the registration of the prepaid installment business operator on November 2, 2012 by applying Articles 40(1)1 and 40(2)3 of the former Installment Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13452, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Installment Transactions Act”) to C.

(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”) At that time, B was in the position of the Plaintiff’s controlling shareholder (ownership shares: 12,300 shares (41%).

On the other hand, B transferred all shares to D on April 14, 2015.

On May 13, 2015, the Fair Trade Commission confirmed the grounds for disqualification of the prepaid installment business operator and notified the Defendant, and on August 14, 2017, the Defendant revoked the registration of the prepaid installment business operator on the ground that B, who was the controlling shareholder at the time of the revocation of registration of the Plaintiff, was the controlling shareholder at the time of the revocation of registration of the Plaintiff, constitutes grounds for revocation of registration under Articles 40(2)2 and 20 subparag. 4 of the Installment Transactions Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). (hereinafter “instant disposition”), without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and Eul’s overall purport of the pleadings, and the overall purport of the instant disposition, despite the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate, although the Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred all shares to D on April 14, 2015, prior to the instant disposition and the grounds for disqualification were resolved, it is against the principle of excessive prohibition or the principle of proportionality merely because there was a temporary violation in the past.

Article 38(1) or Article 39(1) of the former Installment Transactions Act provides for corrective recommendations and corrective orders, and is different.