1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of transporting taxi transportation business for taxi passengers.

B. From March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a warning and imposition of a fine for negligence by the Defendant on August 28, 2017 on the ground that he/she transferred the costs for purchasing a taxi and oil to a taxi driver, and the Plaintiff is still pending a revocation lawsuit (this Court 2017Guhap82055).

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s visit and investigation on November 1, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff allocated LFstetetian vehicles (A) to the taxi drivers affiliated with the Plaintiff from September 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, and additionally collected transportation revenues more than YFstetian vehicles, and deemed that the amount additionally collected was transferred to the taxi drivers, and accordingly, the amount equivalent to the additionally collected funds was transferred to the taxi drivers, and accordingly, on December 6, 2017, Article 12(1) (hereinafter “instant provision”), Article 18(1)1, and Article 21 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act”), and Article 21 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 2, 4, and Eul evidence 3, 4, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The non-existence of the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition 1 is that the Plaintiff decreased transportation revenue for the old-age vehicle through a labor-management agreement to improve the management situation, and the transportation revenue differs depending on the type of the vehicle, age, work environment, and operation hours. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have transferred the new purchase cost to the taxi transport employee to which the Plaintiff belongs, solely on the fact that the transportation revenue for the YF rocketing and other vehicles are different.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is therefore.