logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.27 2016구합193
유가보조금환수 및 지급거절처분취소
Text

1. On March 16, 2015, the part exceeding KRW 39,361,518 of the order issued by the Defendant to return fuel subsidies to the Plaintiff exceeds the amount of KRW 39,361,518.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 2007, the Gwangju Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Heavy Co., Ltd.”) registered the scrapping of the vehicle for freezing towers (vehicle No. A) which is a special-purpose truck that is allowed to be supplied, to a general truck with limited supply of the vehicle number.

(hereinafter referred to as the above act of registering the scrapping of a car in this case is referred to as the "vehicle scrapping of this case".

On September 10, 207, a limited liability company: (a) taken over a vehicle A from Gwangju Heavy on and registered as B; (b) the wall mountain transport company (hereinafter “ wall mountain transport”) took over a vehicle B from the Power Transit on May 20, 2008, and registered as C vehicle; (c) the limited liability company EM (hereinafter “EM”) took over a vehicle B from the wall air transport on January 25, 2010; and (d) the company EM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MM”) took over a vehicle C vehicle from EM on August 30, 2010 to register it as D vehicle on November 6, 2012, after taking over a vehicle from EM as a special purpose truck (teM).

C. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a general trucking business operator, took over D vehicles from the franchising, and registered as E vehicles (hereinafter “instant truck”) by referring to the changed truck from the franchising.

With respect to the instant truck under the pretext of fuel subsidies, the Defendant paid KRW 2,593,888 won to the Musan Town from May 20, 2008 to January 24, 2010, from January 25, 2010 to August 29, 2010, KRW 8,889,034, and KRW 29,56,334, and KRW 39,361,518, to the Plaintiff from August 30, 2010 to November 11, 2012, respectively.

E. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant, in violation of Article 3(3) of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”), charged the Plaintiff with the scrapping of the special-purpose cargo vehicle.

arrow