logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.06.20 2016구합51434
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who operates a route passenger transport business at the prime city.

B. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) determined the implementation period on March 1, 2016 pursuant to Article 23 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”); (b) requested the Plaintiff to notify the Plaintiff of whether the implementation period is implemented or not by February 11, 2016; and (c) notified the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, that if two companies, including the Plaintiff, jointly operate the new route or one companies, do not comply with the business improvement order, the Defendant would allocate the entire route to the other companies.

A route number (number) 2 is the same as the existing route of non-high-high-speed 1-1(16) of the operating number of non-high-speed innovative circulation 4 new innovative branch lines 4(13) of Gyeyang-ri Innovation Innovation City 4(13) of the Yyang-ri Innovation Innovation City, Criminal 2 new phase line (5-3) of the Yuri-dong Central Market of the Yuridong-dong Central Market of the Yuridong-dong Central Market of the 2-1(43) of the Yong-dong Central Market of the

C. On February 16, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit an application for change of passenger transport business plan to implement the order for change of business plan by February 19, 2016.

On the other hand, among the routes specified in the business improvement order, the innovation cycle 1-1 route (number 16; hereinafter “16 route”) was changed to 'Tittyp Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. on May 24, 2016, which was jointly operated with the Plaintiff.’

filed an application for the change of the business plan with the Defendant.

On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to notify in writing the implementation time of the improvement order because there is a mixed line as to the remaining routes from March 1, 2016. However, the Plaintiff did not apply for the modification of the project plan.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant from March 4, 2016, the route No. 16 on March 2, 2016.

arrow