A. On May 9, 1962, S Co., Ltd (hereinafter “S”) had obtained a general taxi transport business license from Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 9, 1962 and operated a general taxi transport business with 66 cabs including 31 cabs listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant cabs”, hereinafter referred to as “31 cabs”) listed in the separate sheet with the first notice and the second notice of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City U.S. as the second notice.

B. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a license for regular taxi transportation business and 66 general taxi transportation business from S, and reported the entire transfer and takeover of the taxi transportation business to Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

C. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant, in violation of Article 12 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Transportation Business Act”), issued an order to reduce the number of the instant taxi registration certificates and the registration number plate of the instant taxi to the competent Gu office by July 22, 2013 pursuant to Articles 85(1)13 and 89(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, on the ground that “S has hadV andW, other than transport business operators, operate the instant taxi as indicated in the attached Form “contract”.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 and 3-2; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 12(1) of the Transport Business Act provides that “A transport business entity shall not have another transport business entity or a person who is not a transport business entity operate passenger transport business with or without compensation.” However, the Plaintiff or the transferor, who is the transferee, shall not operate the contracted taxi that was the cause of the instant disposition.