[운행정지처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Attorney O Young-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
The head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
December 10, 2008
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap3050 decided June 13, 2008
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision on January 10, 208: 1 omitted number 1 omitted, vehicle number 2 omitted, vehicle number 3 omitted, vehicle number 4 omitted, vehicle number 5 omitted, vehicle number 6 omitted, vehicle number 7 omitted, vehicle number 8 omitted, vehicle number 9 omitted, vehicle number 10 omitted, vehicle number 10 omitted, vehicle number 11 omitted, vehicle number 12 omitted, vehicle number 13 omitted, vehicle number 14 omitted, vehicle number 15 omitted, vehicle number 15 omitted, vehicle number 16 omitted, vehicle number 17 omitted, vehicle number 18 omitted, vehicle number 19 omitted, vehicle number 21 omitted, vehicle number 22 omitted, vehicle number 23 omitted, vehicle number 26 omitted, vehicle number 27 omitted, vehicle number 36 omitted, vehicle number 38, vehicle number 36 omitted, vehicle number 36 omitted, vehicle number 36 omitted, vehicle number omitted, vehicle number 38.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following changes and additions among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ 4 3-4 Pursuant to the change of ○○ 3-4: “The transportation income shall be the full amount excluding “the gas price + the wage standard (50,000 won)” during daily work; “the use gas price + the wage standard (65,000 won)” during night work; and “the daily work shall be the full amount excluding “the use gas price + the wage standard (80,000 won or 90,000 won)”.
On December 5, 2007, the Plaintiff’s representative director prepared a written employment contract with the instant taxi drivers, and changed the Plaintiff’s letter of confirmation to the effect that “The instant taxi was operated as one-person first-class system due to lack of engineers, such as the full amount of wages excluding the gas price and the wage base line out of the transport income,” which read, “The Plaintiff’s representative director entered the instant taxi as one-person first-class system.”
Following the 5th 5th 5th “Entry” added “The Plaintiff voluntarily withdraws the form in which the Plaintiff is receiving and managing the total transport revenues from the engineers of the instant taxi, but in substance, the Plaintiff Company shall secure a certain amount of money corresponding to the wage base line, while the engineers of the instant taxi shall bear the risk of changing profits and losses due to the excess of transport revenues (the amount corresponding to the wage base line is virtually different from the previous taxi commission).”
Article 24(1)9 of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that "If a taxi transport business entity takes the risk of change in profit or loss due to the excess of transport earnings by securing a certain amount of transport earnings, a taxi business entity shall only take profits from the excess of the transport earnings secured by the taxi transport business entity, and the risk of an accident is increased due to the excessive operation of the taxi business entity. Furthermore, the risk of an illegal act, such as refusal of boarding, concurrent boarding, and collection of unfair charges, is high, and such taxi is likely to be used as a tool of crime due to negligence in education and control of the taxi transport business entity, as well as the possibility that such taxi will be used as a tool of crime, the full-time management system for preventing such situation or the order for prohibition of contract is merely a change in the terms and conditions of employment between the relevant business entity and the relevant employee's self-management order."
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)