1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: (a) the “16,35,980 won” of the third 4th of the judgment of the first instance is as “81,68,380 won”; and (b) the attached Table 1 attached to the judgment of the first instance is as shown in the attached Table 1 attached to this judgment; and (c) except for the addition of “the following additional determination” with respect to the selective claims added by the Defendant in this court, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (d) thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff selectively, even if Defendant D’s affairs related to the registration of ex officio falls under the discretion of the above Defendant, Article 13(4) of the Automobile Management Act stipulates that in the case of an age exceeding the age limits, the notification of ex officio notification to the owner of the motor vehicle and interested parties may be omitted. However, the above Defendant sent unnecessary pre-notification notice official notices without being aware of such legal provisions, and due to this, it delayed the Plaintiff’s new registration by filing the registration of ex officio cancellation on the “pre-ex officio date” as stated in the attached Form 2, for which 37 days to 161 days have passed since it did not register ex officio cancellation on the “pre-ex officio date” as stated in the attached Table 2, which goes beyond or abused the limits of discretionary power. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s business suspension damage, 41, 320 won, and delay damages.

B. The judicial review of discretionary action is, in principle, subject to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, taking into account the room for determining the public interest by the administrative agency’s discretion, and the examination of whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority is subject to the determination of mistake of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality and equality. Unless any special circumstance exists to deem that the standards established by the administrative agency in carrying out discretionary action are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent may be possible.