Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The summary of the instant case is that the Defendant’s disposition to reduce the number of taxis issued by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, a general taxi transport business entity, contracted part of the taxis registered under the Plaintiff’s name to a third party to operate passenger transport business, does not constitute a disposition requirement under Article 85(1)13, 12, or 89(1)3 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Transportation Business Act”), and thus, sought revocation of the Defendant’s disposition to reduce the number of taxis.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the part of the plaintiff's claim to revoke the disposition to reduce the number of vehicles against B, C, and D, and dismissed the remaining claims, and the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each part of the loss.

(attached Form 2 shall be as shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes).

나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1의 1ㆍ2와 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 등 ㈎ 원고는 서울특별시로부터 일반택시 운송사업면허를 받아 서울 송파구 E을 차고지로 하여 일반택시 운송사업을 하고 있는 여객자동차 운송사업자이다.

㈏ F와 G은 일반택시 운송사업면허를 받지 않은 사람이다.

The Defendant issued an order to reduce the number of automobiles to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2013, in violation of Article 12 of the Transport Business Act, the Defendant: (a) made F, who is not a transport business operator, operate H, I, J, K, L, M, N, andO (hereinafter “AE taxi”); (b) registered B, C, and D under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “AF taxi”) under the name of the Plaintiff; and (c) made B, C, and D (hereinafter “AF taxi”), registered under the name of the Plaintiff in accordance with Article 85(1)13 and Article 89(1)3 of the Transport Business Act (a disposition of an order to reduce the number of automobiles by April 22, 2013).