1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2012, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor revoked the registration of the prepaid installment business operator (hereinafter “instant prior disposition”) by applying Articles 40(1)1 and 40(2)3 of the former Installment Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13452, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “Installment Transactions Act”) with respect to a stock company C (hereinafter “C”) whose controlling shareholder was registered as the controlling shareholder, and notified the Defendant of such fact on November 8, 2012.

B. Accordingly, on May 14, 2015, the Defendant revoked the registration of the prepaid installment business operator on the ground that B was an executive officer of the Plaintiff at the time of revocation of registration pursuant to Article 40(2)2 and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Installment Transactions Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 (including serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defect of the hearing procedure is that the defendant held a hearing to revoke the registration under Article 40 of the Installment Transactions Act on the ground that the plaintiff's initial grounds for disqualification for registration under Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the Installment Transactions Act, but the plaintiff submitted his written opinion, and conducted the second hearing after prior notice under Article 40 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act on the grounds that the plaintiff did not make the plaintiff's statement about whether the plaintiff falls under the grounds for disqualification for registration under Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the Installment Transactions Act in the hearing procedure. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) The construction of the law and the ground for disqualification for registration under Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the Installment Transactions Act on the ground that the plaintiff's first time of registration of the installment transaction business should be interpreted as the grounds for disqualification for registration under Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the Installment Transactions Act on the grounds that it constitutes grounds for disqualification for registration. The plaintiff registered the installment transaction business on September 29, 2010>