1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “determination on the Defendant’s argument” under the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes an application for permission of change under Article 19(1)2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, which constitutes an abuse or abuse of discretionary power, corresponds to “the illegal method” of “the same chassis number,” and thus, the Plaintiff obtained permission of change by using the same chassis number (hereinafter “BCTR Tra”) and repeated registration of the ordinary towing Track on the number of vehicles permitted through the scrapping, thereby obtaining permission of change. As such, it constitutes an ex officio revocation of permission of change under Article 19(1)2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, which constitutes “the illegal method” of Article 19(2) of the Trucking Transport Business Act. As such, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to ex officio revoke permission of change by obtaining new permission of change and obtain permission of change from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Transport, and thus, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to use the Trac Trac Trac c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c r.