1. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a first business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff regarding “C” located in the voice group B, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a rearrangement project site (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) on the Chungcheong-gun B Land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from D to May 15, 2013; and (b) registered the automobile management business (comprehensive maintenance business) with the name of “C” as the location of the instant land on May 31, 2013, as the location of the instant land, from May 31, 2013.

B. While the lease contract between the Plaintiff and D was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff, at the voluntary auction procedure commenced upon the application of the mortgagee’s right to collateral security right established prior to the said lease, acquired the ownership of the instant land and buildings by paying the sale price to the third party on March 30, 2016.

C. In violation of Article 53(3) of the Automobile Management Act and Article 6(1) of the Ordinance on the Criteria, Procedures, etc. for Registration of Motor Vehicle Management Business of Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”), the Defendant issued a disposition on June 30, 2016 under Article 66(1)4 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the right to use the site and building at the place of business is nonexistent (less than the registration standards), and upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s request that the disposal period be extended, the Defendant corrected the disposal period from July 29, 2016 to July 6, 2016 (9).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was issued on June 30, 2016 after the period of disposition was changed (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has already been in operation under the conditions that meet all the registration criteria set forth in Article 53 (3) of the Automobile Management Act and Article 6 (1) [Attachment 2] of the Ordinance of this case.