1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity around the revocation of the Defendant’s refusal of the payment of fuel subsidies as of September 2, 2015 against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s Union on November 17, 2014, and sought revocation of the preliminary subsidy. The first instance court accepted the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the refusal of the payment of fuel subsidies as of September 2, 2015 against the Plaintiff, and rejected the Defendant’s claim as to the primary and preliminary claim as of November 17, 2014 against the Union.

However, since only the defendant appealed against the losing part, this Court makes a decision only on September 2, 2015 on the claim to revoke the decision to refuse the payment of fuel subsidies.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's defense on the ground of the additional determination is merely a confirmation and notification of the previous suspension of the payment of the fuel subsidies, and thus there is no benefit to file a lawsuit seeking revocation.

Articles 16 and 40 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) to which administrative sanctions have been taken place by the transferor, as administrative sanctions have been succeeded to by the transferor to the transferee, including the entrusted borrower, etc. under Article 31 of the Regulations on the Management of Trucking Subsidies, the administrative sanctions following the act of illegal receipt of fuel subsidies by C, which was the entrusted owner owner of the goods owned by the Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vehicle”), shall be succeeded to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

This safety.