The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant did not change the trade name and address of six taxis owned by the plaintiff despite the change in the plaintiff's trade name and address, the 10 taxis taxi in this case did not exceed the age limit, but did not leave the remaining taxis after the expiration of the period of suspension of business (the "period of suspension of business") and the order to reduce the number of taxis in this case was issued, but it seems that the failure of the plaintiff to report the commencement of business after the expiration of the period of suspension of business was due to mere negligence or minor error; ② it is reasonable to view that the failure of the plaintiff to report the commencement of business after the expiration of the period of suspension of business was due to the plaintiff's violation of the law and order to reduce the number of taxis in this case due to the plaintiff's violation of the law and order to reduce the number of taxis in this case. ③ The plaintiff's violation of the law and order to report the commencement of business was not found to have been made lawfully even after the expiration of the period of suspension of business before April 22, 2010.

2. First of all, Article 85 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11295, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that the grounds for disposition that did not change the trade name and address of a taxi or that the age of a taxi of a taxi was excessive shall not constitute a ground for disposition, solely on the ground that a passenger transport business entity did not change the trade name and address of a taxi or that the age of a taxi of a taxi was over the age of a taxi, and that a punitive administrative disposition may be taken, such as ordering a passenger transport business entity to change the business plan following the reduction of the number of his/her vehicles, etc.

3. Next, we examine the grounds for disposition that the taxi did not resume its business with respect to which the period of temporary closure has expired.

A. Article 85 of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that where a passenger transport business entity fails to resume his/her business even after the expiration of the period of suspension in violation of Article 16 of the Act, he/she may order the alteration of the business plan following the reduction of trucks, etc., in violation of paragraph (1) 16 of the same Article, the standards, etc. for such disposition shall be delegated to Presidential Decree under paragraph (3) of the same Article.

30. Article 43(1)3 and 43(1)3 of the Presidential Decree (amended by Act No. 23473; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the [Attachment Table 3] of the above [Attachment Table 3] provides that a passenger transport business entity shall order the reduction of the number of automobiles for which the violation was committed in cases where a passenger transport business entity suspends part of his/her business and fails to resume his/her business after the expiration of the suspension period. Meanwhile, Article 43(1)3 of the above [Attachment 3] of the [Attachment 3] provides general standards for disposition. Paragraph (1)(c) of the above [Attachment 3] provides that where a violation is deemed to have been caused by minor negligence or error, not intentional or gross negligence, (2) where it is deemed that the violation committed first, and (3) where it is recognized that the violation committed exemplary passenger transport business for at least five years, and (4) where it is deemed necessary for government policy measures for passenger transport business.

B. We examine the grounds for disposition against B-si (hereinafter “instant refusal taxi”)

Where a person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business intends to fully or partially suspend the business, he/she shall return the registration certificate and registration number plate of his/her automobile to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, and may resume the business after returning the returned registration certificate and registration number plate upon the expiration of the period of suspension (main sentence of Articles 16 (1), 89 (1) 2 and (3) 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act), and when the commencement of transport is made, he/she shall report it to the competent authority within three days (Article 40 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 350, Apr. 11, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply). Meanwhile, when a person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business intends to alter a motor vehicle to replace or scrap it, he/she shall report it to the Passenger Transport Service Association under Article 30 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Article 84 (1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act);

However, according to the evidence rejected by the lower court, the Plaintiff obtained permission to suspend the business of the instant taxi for the refusal of the registration until April 25, 2010. Since the said taxi had already exceeded the age limit before the suspension period was expired, the Plaintiff newly purchased a passenger car to resume the relevant taxi business and completed a report on the change of the transport business plan to substitute the vehicle on April 22, 2010, and then visited the employees of the Plaintiff company to register the substitute vehicle pursuant to the Automobile Management Act. However, on the ground that the report on the commencement of the business of the instant refusal of the registration was not made, the receipt of the application for the registration of the automobile was rejected on the grounds that the notification on the commencement of the business of the instant refusal of the registration was not made. On the same day, although the Plaintiff visited the Seo-gu Office of Gwangju Metropolitan City for the registration again, the receipt of the written request for the registration of the

In light of these circumstances in light of the above legal principles, since the Plaintiff purchased a passenger car and completed a report on the change of a transport business plan to substitute a passenger car in order to substitute a passenger car whose age exceeds the age limit for the taxi of this case, if the registration of the automobile was not rejected, it appears that the receipt of an application for registration of an alternative vehicle could not resume the business without justifiable grounds. Thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to resume the business of the taxi of this case can not be deemed to have been caused by intention or gross negligence, even if it could not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to resume the business of the taxi of this case was caused by minor negligence or error.

C. We examine the grounds for disposal of the remaining nine taxis out of the 10 taxis of the instant case (hereinafter “the remaining taxis”).

According to the records, the plaintiff was holding 43 taxi drivers from around February 7, 1964, who operated the 2nd taxi transport business, and obtained permission for each of 12 taxis including the remainder of the taxi in this case for the period from December 1, 2009 to September 8, 2010 for the remaining 2nd taxi transport business. The remaining 9th taxi in this case did not resume the business even after the expiration of the period of temporary closure. The remaining 2nd taxi transport business after the lapse of the age limit of the remaining 6th taxi in this case, it appears that the plaintiff could not replace the remaining 6th taxi in this case because it was impossible for the plaintiff to remove the attachment of the 2nd taxi in this case due to the reason that the 2nd taxi transport business operator violated the 20th Passenger Transport Business Act for the reason that the 2nd taxi in this case's order was issued on July 2009, the plaintiff company acquired the 2nd taxi in this case for the remaining 2nd taxi transport business operator.

In light of these circumstances, ① the Plaintiff was under suspension of business on or around February 17, 2009, on all the remaining nine taxis, but failed to resume business after extending the period of suspension of business or resumption of business, and the Plaintiff failed to resume business after obtaining permission for the suspension of business. As such, the failure to resume business is deemed to be due to the Plaintiff’s minor negligence or error in failing to resume business on the remainder of the taxi of this case, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s failure to resume business on or around February 17, 2009 was due to the Plaintiff’s minor negligence and error in giving rise to the Plaintiff’s failure to suspend business on or after the expiration of the period of suspension of business, and the Plaintiff failed to resume business even after the expiration of the period of suspension of business after the expiration of the period of suspension of business, and the Plaintiff’s penalty surcharge was imposed on the remainder of the taxi of this case on the grounds that it exceeded the age of the age of the second, the Plaintiff’s penalty surcharge was not subject to the order to reduce the number of taxi of this case.

4. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to resume his business related to the instant taxi after the period of suspension of business was expired is due to minor negligence or error, not intentional or gross negligence. Thus, the part on the instant refused taxi in the judgment below regarding the instant refused taxi in its entirety is just and acceptable, but it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to revocation of the license and order to reduce the number of taxis under the Passenger Transport Service Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part concerning the taxi which rejected the registration of this case, is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young