The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a private taxi transport business entity who belongs to the Association B and operates the private taxi.

B. On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff operated the said private taxi even though it was on a holiday in accordance with the Private Taxi System on January 29, 2019, and filed a voluntary report to the Defendant on the same day.

C. After confirming the Plaintiff’s violation through relevant data, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 200,000 on February 28, 2019, under Articles 21 and 85 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 15735, Aug. 14, 2018; hereinafter “former Passenger Transport Service Act”) and Article 46 [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29551, Feb. 12, 2019) pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

(hereinafter referred to as "relevant disposition") d.

Article 21 of the Passenger Transport Act does not provide for the provision on the violation of the taxi subsidiary system, and Article 21 of the Daegu District Court ruled that, “The matters to be observed by a transport business entity regarding the safe operation and the guidance and confirmation for the improvement of passenger convenience or service, etc. in addition to paragraphs (1) through (11) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.” However, the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act does not provide for the matters delegated by the above provision, and therefore, the defendant cannot take the instant disposition on the ground of Article 21 of the Passenger Transport Act, and thus, the defendant rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff

(Seoul District Court Decision 2019Gudan717, hereinafter referred to as "related judgment"). The related judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the defendant revoked the related disposition.

E. On October 17, 2019, the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor lost the Defendant’s non-performance of the provision in a “related lawsuit,” then intends to apply the relevant provision by changing the relevant provision to an order for business improvement under Article 21 of the existing Passenger Transport Act.