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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on February 5, 2004 and registered as rent-a-car business and engaged in siren business.

B. On September 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of revocation of registration of passenger transport business (automobile rental) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition against the use of the name of car rental business under Article 12(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) from the end of November 2012 as of October 5, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she violated Article 12(1) of the Passenger Transport Act by having a vehicle rent-a-car business registered under the Plaintiff’s name after receiving vehicle rent, etc. from the Plaintiff who was an employee. However, among the 23 vehicles discovered by the 23 vehicles occupied by B, C4 vehicles are not a seat-in vehicle, and ② the Plaintiff’s commencement of the act of violation is not a seat-in vehicle, but a seat-off vehicle is not a seat-off vehicle, ② the Defendant’s commencement of the act of violation, as the premise of the instant disposition, immediately after receiving the 26 reduction of the number of vehicles from the same act of violation, around July 23, 2012, but rather, since around October 16, 2014 through October 10, 2013, ③ the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the number of vehicles with a seat-in vehicle at the time of receiving the reduction of the number of vehicles due to the same cause, and ④ the Plaintiff’s business owner’s stable loss and loss.