beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff, as indicated in attached Table 1, was a company operating general trucking transport business, and the Plaintiff removed a general-use truck (motor vehicle transport-cellor, sprinker) from the general-use truck and a special-use truck (Wing wing, freezing tower, wing wing wing wing), and the Plaintiff acquired two vehicles of the company wing 2 times as listed in attached Table 1 No. 2.
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant vehicles” as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and the scrapping of the instant vehicles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 shall be referred to as “each of the instant vehicles”. (b)
The Defendant’s disposition determined that the Defendant changed the permitted matters without obtaining permission for the change by scrapping it into a general-use truck in which the supply of a special-use truck is restricted and a special-use truck, and on September 29, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff obtained permission for the change of a vehicle for the substitute-type truck as indicated in the attached Table 1 List 2, on the ground that he/she acquired the vehicle for which permission for change was obtained by illegal means as stated in the attached Table 1 List 2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”), Article 19(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26251, May 26, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act”), and Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on October 16, 2014, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 22, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] dispute.