1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for modification or addition of a trial decision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A corrected or added portion;

A. On February 13, 2018, the above criminal judgment was finalized on February 13, 2018 and revised “as the final appeal by the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) was dismissed” in the 3th page 14-15 of the judgment of the first instance.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there was no ground to dispose of the instant disposition, since the Plaintiff did not drive retaliation against a motor vehicle using the motor vehicle.

However, even if a civil or administrative trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the facts that the criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis was found guilty are valuable evidence, and thus, the facts against this cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt the decision of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil or criminal trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du28240 Decided May 24, 2012, etc.). According to the respective statements in the Evidence Nos. 14, 15, and 16 and this court’s significant facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was convicted of both charges of causing special injury to the victim and damage to property by taking advantage of the victim’s demand for the care of the victim and by taking advantage of the victim’s vehicle, and all of the judgment was finalized on February 13, 2018 (Ulsan District Court Decision 2016No4518 (Dismissal 8, 2017No2919 (Dismissal 2), Ulsan District Court Decision 2017Do20919 (Dismissal 2)).

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff used the automobile at the time.