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

On February 2, 2015 and March 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant a total of 74 illegal commercial transport.

After that, on November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of information on the details that can be paid a monetary reward upon completion of administrative disposition or punishment among the details reported by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on November 4, 2016, and the Defendant disclosed the above 74 details on November 16, 2016. According to that, it was confirmed that 19 items including 10 items already paid a monetary reward were subject to the payment.

On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to the effect that “The Plaintiff’s report was made prior to the enforcement of Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Reporting Violations of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the instant Enforcement Rule”), which restricts the payment of monetary rewards, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of 7 cases excluding 12 cases already paid among 19 cases subject to payment, and if it is confirmed to be eligible for payment even later than the remainder of 55 cases, the Defendant shall claim payment.”

(hereinafter “instant application”). On January 19, 2017, the Defendant sent the title “related to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Reporting Violations of the Passenger Transport Service Act” to the effect that “The standards for the payment of monetary rewards for reporting appears to be a clerical error under Article 9(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case.” Pursuant to subparagraph 1, the Defendant sent the reply that the payment of monetary rewards for reporting would be made only one day per year as of the date of occurrence of the offense, and up to

(hereinafter “instant reply”). The instant reply merely directed the Plaintiff that a monetary reward is paid up to 12 cases in accordance with Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case regarding the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure, as to the fact that there was no dispute regarding the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings by the Defendant.