The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is a person engaging in driving service of B-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

② On January 5, 2019 ( Saturdays) around 20:48, a passenger who was boarding the instant taxi reported his refusal to take passengers by telephone to the Defendant, and the details of the report are as follows.

Around January 5, 2019, around C upper 20:35, the taxi of this case, which had been turn on frequently, was skeed and was on board in a state. Around January 5, 2019, the article was seeed as a “fluoring-in” in that it was asked where the article remains, and the article was too far away, and was not used by the article. ③ Upon prior notice, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff from boarding (on January 5, 2019) on April 30, 2019 against the Plaintiff on April 30, 201.

“A disposition to warn a person engaged in taxi transportation (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transport Business.

④ Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 24, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. 원고의 주장 원고는, 이 사건 당시에 여객이 이 사건 택시에 실을 수 없는 대형 박스에 담긴 짐을 강제로 밀어 넣고 탑승하려고 하여, ‘ 중량이 20kg 이상이거나 용적이 40,000㎤ 이상인 화물을 싣지 말라’ 는 서울시 지침에 따라 여객에게 내리라고 하였을 뿐이지 승차를 거부하였던 것이 아니다.

At the time, the Plaintiff did not comply with the regulations of Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the passengers agreed to “to know”.

On the other hand, the statement of opinion submitted to the defendant under the name of the plaintiff is a letter issued by the company's employees on behalf of the plaintiff.