1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant transport employees, who had no grounds for disposition, paid the taxi commission to C while driving a taxi under the direction and supervision of C under C, and received benefits from C. Therefore, the Plaintiff Company was unlawful in the instant disposition based on a different premise, even though there was no violation of the provision prohibiting the use of the name under the former Passenger Transport Act due to the operation of passenger transport business by using C’s taxi. (2) The instant disposition based on the unconstitutionality and illegality of the instant disposition based on the provision on the instant disposition, which is a provision on the prohibition of use of the name under Article 12 of the former Passenger Transport Act, which provides for the revocation of a business license for one-time violation without distinction of the type of violation, degree, period, etc.

2. Individual standards:

A. Subparagraph 7 of Article 85(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 6335 of Dec. 30, 200) which held that the provision of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 6335 of Dec. 30, 200) which held that not only exceeded the scope of delegation under Article 85(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act, which could have discretion, but also revoked the license of the passenger transport service provider for the business in violation of the prohibition of use of name, violates the purpose of the Constitutional Court’s decision on June 1, 200 that is contrary to the principle of minimum damage and the principle of balance of legal interests, and thus

3. The violation of the principle of trust protection or the principle of invalidation was committed not later than seven years prior to the disposition of this case, and the company of the plaintiff also at the regular inspection received from the defendant.