1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on cargo transport business, and the non-party limited liability company is a company that carries on the transportation business of agricultural and fishery products.

B. From April 12, 2009 to December 26, 2011, the Mangyman had 47 freight cars listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant freight cars”) supplied in the same manner as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, which is limited in the same manner as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1.

C. On February 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired each of the instant cargo vehicles from the Mangy Station; and (b) changed the registration number while registering the transfer of ownership; and (c) completed the report on the transfer to the competent authorities.

On December 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2015Guhap13666 on the ground that “each of the instant cargo vehicles constitutes an illegal scrapping and increased vehicle; and (b) the Plaintiff succeeded to the transferor’s position as the transferor who committed the instant violation; (c) on the instant cargo vehicle, the instant disposition was rendered on 60 days to stop the operation of the illegal vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) the restitution disposition of the illegal and unfair supply and demand fuel subsidy (hereinafter “instant restitution disposition”); and (e) the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition under the Gwangju District Court 2015Guhap13666, Jun. 23, 2016.

E. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of the execution period of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff from August 5, 2016 to October 3, 2016 (hereinafter “instant execution notice”).

F. On August 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce the number of vehicles in violation of the instant disposition to reduce the number of vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition to reduce the number of vehicles”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant disposition to stop the operation (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition to reduce the number of vehicles”). On September 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she would appear on the date of the scheduled hearing as of September 26, 2016 for