1. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to reduce the number of taxis listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2013 to B, C, and D.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a passenger transport business entity that operates a regular taxi transport business with 97 taxis including 11 taxi units listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxi”) with the Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a garage after obtaining a general taxi transport business license from the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to reduce the number of taxis, on the ground that “The Plaintiff operated the instant taxi in violation of Article 12 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Transportation Business Act”) from June 3, 2010 to March 31, 201, the Defendant, who was not a transport business entity, had F and G operate the instant taxi in the same manner as indicated in the attached contract details in attached Form (F, “F,” hereinafter “instant 1 taxi”). G, C, and D (hereinafter “instant 2 taxi”) operated the instant taxi in accordance with Article 85(1)13 and Article 89(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and (1)3 of the former Automobile Management Act, and voluntarily paid the registration number of the instant taxi in accordance with Article 12 subparag. 13 and 413 of the former Automobile Management Act.”

hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"

(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a daily employment contract with the instant taxi drivers (hereinafter “instant taxi drivers”), and had the instant taxi operate the instant taxi in accordance with the terms of the employment contract. The instant engineers purchased four insurance policies, such as national health insurance, as other monthly class engineers, and paid the insurance premium.

The plaintiff himself/herself has all parts, such as the dispatch of the taxi in this case, the purchase of insurance and dealing with accidents, and the maintenance of vehicles.