The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 2002, the Plaintiff joined a trucking transport business company B and was engaged in driving business of a trucking transport business, and retired on March 27, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff, as a branch owner of C Trucks, a truck for trucking transport business (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), concluded an entrustment contract with D Co., Ltd. and entered D Co., Ltd from May 1, 2019, and was engaged in driving of the instant vehicle.

C. On May 21, 2019, the Plaintiff registered employment with the E Association (hereinafter “E Association”) pursuant to Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”). Around being informed by the E Association that the Plaintiff ought to undergo a new test of driving aptitude due to reemployment (hereinafter “detailed inspection of driving aptitude”), and was subject to a precise inspection on July 31, 2019.

On April 3, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff under Article 8(1)2, 44, and 44-2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), Article 9-15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”), Article 9-16, Article 28(1)15, and Article 28(1)15, and Article 28(2), Article 28(1)15, and Article 28(2), and Article 28(15, and Article 29 of the Subsidy Management Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules for the Management of Additional Subsidies”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was paid a fuel subsidy without undergoing a close inspection of driving aptitude from May 1, 2019 to July 30, 2019.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff’s instant case to the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission.