1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 17, 1986, the Plaintiff is operating a scrapping paper (hereinafter “instant scrapping paper”) with the trade name of “C” on the ground of the land of 2,975 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) in Sejong-si from November 17, 1986.

Among the buildings of the automobile-scrapping of this case, the size of the dismantled site is 200.4 square meters, and the size of the office is 102.68 square meters.

B. On November 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke business registration (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the registration standards, on the grounds that the registration standards for the automobile management business were newly established in the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, and the automobile dismantling business was registered pursuant to the previous provisions with a three-year grace period of grace, and that the automobile dismantling business was registered pursuant to the previous provisions until December 31, 2015, even if the Plaintiff had failed to meet the requirements for registration even though it was required to meet at least 30 square meters in storage of parts.

The location of the representative of the company name is that of the administrative disposition that is the legal basis of the violation C, which is the legal basis of the violation, falls short of the registration standards for the D Motor Vehicle Management (facilities size, dismantled workplace, parts storage warehouse) - Article 53(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act - Article 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act ( November 13, 2017).

C. On November 13, 2017, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul-do Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on April 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 8, 20, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not hold a hearing on the part of “less than the facility area” among the grounds for the instant disposition, and even if the Plaintiff filed a petition related to the instant scrapping track on or around October 23, 2017, the instant disposition was procedurally unlawful. 2) The site area of the instant scrapping track is within the facility area set forth in the facility standards as 2,975 square meters.