감차명령취소
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.
Defendant.
1. Details of the instant disposition
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
(b) Related statutes;
(c) Fact of recognition;
D. (1) The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning each of the above parts of the relevant legal principles is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) With respect to AZ, AP, Q, BS, AR, BA, AT, BU, AW, AU, AV, AY, AX-si (13 vehicles), the reasons why the court should explain this part is the same as the entry from 20th to 25th 11th 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(3) As to the order to reduce the number of automobiles to CB taxis, the Defendant issued an order to reduce the number of automobiles to the said taxi on the ground that V, other than a transport business entity, was engaged in passenger transport business using the said taxi in violation of Article 12 of the SB Transport Business Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that V operated passenger transport business using the said taxi, and thus, the order to reduce the number of automobiles to the said taxi is unlawful.
(4) The reasons why the court should explain this part of the order to reduce the number of vehicles to the rest of each taxi (17 vehicles) are as follows: (6) No. 26th 14th 1 of the judgment of the court of the court of the first instance: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that W has a labor relationship with the driver of the second taxi, such as excluding WW, preparing a labor contract, etc.; and (b) WW appears to have no record of the second taxi, unlike V, that there is no separate books of account, such as the dispatch day for the second taxi, the record day for driving of drivers, and receipts for the payment of operating earnings. (i) The Defendant did not join the labor union as the so-called contracting engineer.