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

A. The Plaintiff is a trucking business operator who operates passenger transport business in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City by making use of a taxi in the business area, as prescribed by the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Act”).

B. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 400,000 on the ground that (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s transport employees A, who were affiliated with the Plaintiff, boarded-si, which was outside the Plaintiff’s business area, boarded-si, Goyang-si, which was located outside of the Plaintiff’s business area, brought passengers aboard the felbbage of Goyang-si, which was brought down to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s transport employee A, who is the Plaintiff’s assertion, was a passenger who will go to a hotel in Goyang-si, Mapo-si, Seoul, with a view to getting the passenger to go to a hotel in the city of Mapo-si. The Plaintiff’s transport employee demanded the passenger to go to the village large-scale village apartment with Amapo-si, and Ga to go to the horse after hearing the horses.

However, since passengers get off at the entrance of low-term apartment, they were landed at the entrance of a large village-type apartment without charge.

Considering such circumstances of operation and the absence of operating fees, A cannot be deemed to have been engaged in business outside the business area.

Therefore, the instant disposition that is premised on business outside the business area is unlawful.

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

C. We examine whether a transport employee A, who belongs to the Plaintiff, runs a business outside the business area.

On October 30, 2015, around 20:39 on October 20, 2015, the transport employee A, who belongs to the Plaintiff, operated 1.97km of passengers to the felbbbal of Goyang-si, the Plaintiff’s business area, and then, around 20:47 on the same day, he/she was also a party to the fact that he/she, at around 20:47, was landed into the large village apartment of Goyang-si, the other business area.