1. The Defendant’s disposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 200,000 against the Plaintiff on September 29, 2014 is revoked.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a person who is running a private taxi transport business after obtaining a private taxi transport business license from B on July 9, 200 after obtaining authorization for the transfer and acquisition of the license from the Defendant.

On September 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a penalty surcharge of KRW 200,00 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was operated in violation of the schedule at D private rain or entrance on June 26, 2014,” pursuant to Articles 21 and 88 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”), Article 46 and [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act, pursuant to the relevant statutes, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,00 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2 and 3-2, the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the improvement order under the Passenger Transport Act asserted by the parties concerned is effective only when they are notified to the automobile transport business operator who is the other party to the disposition. Since the defendant notified the plaintiff of such improvement order, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

The defendant's argument was made before the plaintiff acquired a private taxi transportation business license, and there was no change between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant added the non-compliance condition to B while granting a private taxi transportation business license, and the non-compliance operation for private taxi transportation business operators was publicly known. Thus, the plaintiff should be deemed to have been well aware of the personal taxi system.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

The Defendant imposed penalty surcharges on the Plaintiff on the ground of the violation of the provisions of Article 21 and Article 88 of the Passenger Transport Act, and Article 46 and [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act, while rendering the instant disposition on the ground that the pertinent disposition was lawful.