1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are companies running taxi transportation business with their business area located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. Article 12(1) of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (amended by Act No. 12378, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “ taxi development Act”) provides that “A taxi transport business entity shall not bear expenses incurred in purchasing and operating a taxi,” and the said provision was enforced from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 1, 2016 pursuant to the proviso to Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by Act No. 12378).

C. Around 2017, the Defendant conducted a fact-finding survey on the violation of Article 12 of the taxi development Act against taxi transportation business entities operating in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs committed each relevant violation listed in the attached Table 2.

From October 2016 to June 2017, the Plaintiffs, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) who committed a violation prior to the purchase cost of each taxi listed in the attached Table 2 list of the Plaintiffs stated that the purchase cost of the taxi was transferred to taxi drivers by setting the daily standard amount of LF Engine, which is a new vehicle, at the rate of KRW 1,00 to KRW 7,00,00, which is a new vehicle, at the rate of KRW 1,00 or KRW 7,000, which is a vehicle after the aging, during the period from October 2016 to June 2017. The detailed contents of the fuel cost portion are as follows: “The Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff B, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) who committed a violation of each oil cost listed in the attached Table 2 list, determined the amount of oil as 80 liter per month between December 8, 2016 to April 20, or set the amount exceeding 1 to 30 or more 50 liter per day.”

The defendant is against the plaintiffs in accordance with Article 18 of the taxi development Act on the ground that the plaintiffs violated Article 12 of the taxi development Act by committing each of the relevant violations listed in the same list on the corresponding date of each disposition listed in the attached list 2.