여객자동차운송사업계획변경신고 수리반려처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in a general taxi transport business after obtaining a license for passenger transport business.
B. According to the proviso to Article 10(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”), Article 33(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 487, Feb. 12, 2018; hereinafter the same), where a plaintiff who runs a taxi transport business intends to change his/her garage, he/she shall file a report on the change of the plan for passenger transport business with the competent authority.
On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff reported a change in the passenger transport service plan to the effect that “Seoul E (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul E”) leases the term of lease to the Defendant, who is the competent authority, and uses it as the garage of the 64th taxi, but F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) uses the tea appurtenant facilities in the land 2nd.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant report”). C.
On July 3, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant report on the ground that “The acceptance of the instant report is limited to the installation of a garage under the Passenger Transport Act on the land of this case, which is a visual scenic district, pursuant to Article 40 of the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seoul Metropolitan Government and subparagraph 20 of attached Table 1.”
(The rejection of the above acceptance is hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 6, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the ground that the instant land No. 1 is a visual scenic district stipulated in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Planning Ordinance, and the installation of a garage in accordance with the Passenger Transport Act is restricted within the said area.
However, Article 40 (1) of the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seoul Metropolitan Government limits the "building" of "building," and it has already been built without any separate building construction.