logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2016.08.31 2015누11274
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company registered as a chartered bus transportation business entity under the Passenger Transport Service Act.

B. On July 21, 2014, the head of Changwon-si rendered a civil petition to the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff entered into a contract of carriage with a substitute driver in Busan, Kimhae, and Changwon-si, and operates B, etc. owned by the Plaintiff as a substitute driver shuttle bus,” the head of Changwon-si sent a civil petition related to the act of chartered buses to the effect that “the Plaintiff actually confirmed the fact that the said vehicle, etc. is operating as a package shuttle bus as a result of on-site verification.”

C. On October 16, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge in accordance with attached Table 46(1) [Attachment Table 38(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 12645, May 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Passenger Transport Service Act”) on October 16, 2014 on the following grounds: (a) the chartered bus transport business registered by the Plaintiff is a business that transports the whole country as a business area without establishing the operation system; (b) the Plaintiff entered into a transport contract with an enterprise (or a federation) to transport a substitute driver; and (c) the chartered bus belonging to the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff operated the business in violation of the scope of the registered type of business; and (d) the Plaintiff violated the registered type of business; and (e) the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge in accordance with Article 88 and Article 85(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26064, Jan. 28, 2015).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties, and the substitute driving company to which the substitute driving engineer belongs for the convenience of the substitute driving engineer working in the area of Kimhae.

arrow