1. The Defendant’s revocation of the registration of the prepaid installment business on May 14, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2012, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor revoked the registration of a prepaid installment business operator 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 “Installment Transactions Act”) with respect to a stock company C (hereinafter “C”) registered as a controlling shareholder, and notified the Defendant of the fact on November 8, 2012.

B. Accordingly, on May 14, 2015, the Defendant revoked the registration of the prepaid installment business operator on the ground that B was a controlling shareholder at the time of revocation of registration of C based on Article 40(2)2 and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Installment Transactions Act with the Plaintiff, who was an executive officer.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) / (hereinafter “Disposition in this case”), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The grounds for disqualification under Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Installment Transaction Act, which did not have the grounds for disposition, should be interpreted only as the grounds for disqualification at the time of initial registration of installment transaction business. The Plaintiff registered installment transaction business on September 29, 2010, which was before C’s registration of installment transaction was revoked, and B was also an executive of the Plaintiff before C’s becoming a controlling shareholder. The instant disposition was erroneous for the interpretation and application of statutes. (2) The Defendant abused discretionary power as follows. The Defendant abused the discretionary power and rendered the instant disposition. Even if the Plaintiff’s failure to take corrective measures, even if it is interpreted that the revocation of registration is possible because the grounds for disqualification under Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Installment Transaction Act is also applied to an installment business operator, the Defendant ordered corrective measures under Article 39 of the Installment Transaction Act, and then the disposition of this case was immediately taken after the Plaintiff’s revocation of registration.