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 general taxi transport business entity under the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”). The Plaintiff, as indicated in the table below, was subject to imposition of administrative fines, warnings, etc. under the Act on the Development of Passenger Transport Business (hereinafter “instant refusal to take passengers”), by 15 times in total, on November 16, 2016 through November 15, 2018 (hereinafter “subject period”) for refusing to take passengers or allowing passengers to get off on the taxi without justifiable grounds.

B CD E FH H I JJ Q Q Q Q u u NAM NAV CY A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A,

B. The Defendant’s act of refusing to take passengers in the instant case constitutes “(number of violations), / (number of licensed vehicles) x 5” as the calculation formula of the violation index as stipulated in Article 21 [Attachment 2] [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act.

The Plaintiff’s number of licensed vehicles owned is 70, and the number of violations is 15, so the violation index is 1.07 = 1.07 x 5 x less than two decimal places). On June 24, 2019, after prior notice on December 7, 2018, notified the Plaintiff to suspend transportation business for 26 times, which is 13 times the two times the number of taxi vehicles directly related to the instant act of refusing to take passengers (O and G2 overlapping violations) for the reason that the number of violations is 15.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The proviso to Article 18(1)4 of the Plaintiff’s assertion taxi development Act (hereinafter “instant exemption provision”) does not impose unfavorable measures, such as partial suspension of business, in cases where the taxi transportation business entity was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the pertinent business in order to prevent a violation.