The defendant.

A. The Defendant Mayor is a traffic administrative agency under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons (hereinafter “the Mobility Disadvantaged Act”). B (hereinafter “B”) on December 8, 2005, the Defendant Mayor operated by the Defendant Mayor by not later than August 30, 2019, a welfare call taxi for disabled persons (hereinafter “instant taxi”) which is a special means of transportation under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act, by not later than August 30, 2019. The total of 80 instant taxi operated by B is a vehicle that alters the “new car project” with the full approval of 7 persons; the first class of the vehicle, the first class of the vehicle, the second class of the two seats, and the latter part, including the third class and bitke, are installed with two wheelchairs, so that the passengers can use the wheelchairs, and the latter part, including the latter part, are installed with wheelchairs and wheelchairs, and are installed with a wheel chairs installed.

It is a transportation business entity under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Mobility Disadvantaged Persons who are operating the taxi of this case upon entrustment due to obtaining a limited license for the taxi of this case.

B Until August 30, 2019, Article 23 of the terms and conditions of the instant taxi transport only operated as follows.

Article 23 (1) of the terms and conditions of welfare call taxi transportation for persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as the "transportation clause of this case") 1 or 2 disabled persons under Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act who are difficult to use buses, subways, etc.