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

A. The Plaintiff is a company running taxi transport business with a license for passenger transport service (license 184) from the Defendant.

B. On January 21, 1993, pursuant to Article 25 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), the Defendant issued an order to improve the business of the so-called “Prohibition of Management outside the garage” with the content that all vehicles shall be stored in the company garage after the end of operation every day, and that the driver's work belt shall be conducted within the company garage.

C. On March 20, 2008, the Defendant issued an order to improve all passenger transport service providers pursuant to Article 24 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8980, Mar. 21, 2008) to prohibit “an act of leaving a vehicle without a transport employee’s entry into the company garage after the completion of operation,” and a business improvement order prohibiting “out the company garage management” (hereinafter “order to improve the business in this case”).

On April 9, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty of KRW 1.2 million on the Plaintiff, and on October 18, 2013, pursuant to Articles 23, 85(1)22, and 88(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff-affiliated taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) is managed outside the garage and violated the instant order for business improvement.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 5, 6, and No. 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not manage the instant taxi outside the garage.

In the case of this case, B, an engineer of this case, driving the taxi of this case under the primary exclusive service system for one person, his personal usage, rest, and family affairs.