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

The defendant from September 1, 2016 to the plaintiff

9. From September 1, 200-1 to February 201, Article 85(1) of the former Passenger Transport Act, Article 88(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27922, Feb. 28, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”) was notified of the violation of Article 10 of the former Passenger Transport Act (amended by Act No. 14716, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) by being notified of the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City and following prior notice and procedures for submitting opinions.

1) Based on the foregoing, KRW 229,00,000 x KRW 229,000 per conference = 229,000 won per conference. However, under Article 88(1) of the former Passenger Transport Act, the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 is determined as the upper limit pursuant to Article 88(1) of the same Act. Imposition of penalty surcharges (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1-3, Eul 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a limited license route that is not subject to the bus completion system, and as the route is considerably more difficult than the existing route, the passage inevitably occurred in the situation where normal operation is difficult.

Therefore, considering the above circumstances, the defendant did not reduce the penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 46 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act even though it can reduce the penalty surcharge, and there is an error of law that deviates from or abused the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

다. 판단 (1) 관련 법리 ㈎ 구 여객자동차법 제10조 제1항은 여객자동차운송사업의...