경고처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company running taxi transport business after obtaining a passenger transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act with its business area in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. The Defendant: (a) around July 2017, from March 1, 2017 to the same year by the Plaintiff.
3. By August 31, 201, the Plaintiff’s daily transport earnings from LFIS and YFIS from among the vehicles owned by the Plaintiff were confirmed to have a difference as indicated below, and the Plaintiff’s warning was issued to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 12(1) and 18(1)1 of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “FS”) and Article 21 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act (hereinafter “instant warning disposition”), and Article 25 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on August 21, 2017, deeming that the purchase price of new vehicles equivalent to KRW 2,00,00, which is the difference, was transferred to taxi drivers.
YF (2014) 126,000 B 2,000 B 2,000 LF (2015) 128,000 153,000 C on March 2, 2017, YF (2014) 126,00 o.m. (2015) o.m. 153,000 o.m.
C. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant warning disposition, but the said commission decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on April 26, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;
A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits was found to have committed the same illegal act from August 21, 2017 to the lapse of one year from the date of the instant warning disposition, and thus, there was no room to apply subparagraph 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act in relation to the instant warning disposition, and thus, the legal interest in seeking the revocation of the said warning disposition was extinguished.
Therefore, this paper seeks the revocation of the warning disposition of this case.