1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Seoul Main Customs Office investigated the Plaintiff for a suspected violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act, etc. and notified the Defendant of the result.

Article 48(1) and (2) of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 13874, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 26, 2017; Article 52 [Attachment Table 12] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2850, Dec. 26, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 48(1) and Article 56(1)1 and (2) of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 13874, Jul. 28, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 52 [Attachment Table 12] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2850, Dec. 26, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) raising the penalty surcharge of KRW 148,790,2716,7

On July 27, 2016, the Defendant applied the upper limit of KRW 1 billion to vehicles sold on or before July 27, 2016, and the upper limit of KRW 10 billion to vehicles sold continuously after July 28, 2016.

Pursuant to subparagraphs 2 and 2 of this Article and Article 52 [Attachment 12] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act, a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,324,150,660 (specific types of violation and calculation details of penalty surcharges are as shown in attached Table 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) was imposed, respectively, on the penalty surcharge of KRW 6,324,150,660 (specific types of violation and calculation details of penalty surcharges; hereinafter the same

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is related to the second disposition.