1. The Defendant against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on January 22, 2016, and against the Appointed B on December 23, 2015, and to the Appointed C.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) On December 12, 2015, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) was on the crosswalk of the road in front of the Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, and on November 16 and 16, 2015; on November 23, 2015; on November 23, 2015; on November 24, 2015; on the Selection C, on November 24, 2015; on the Selection C, around November 11:07, 2015; on the Selection E (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) all of the Selections and Selections were on their own passengers around December 10:14, 2015.

(hereinafter “each act of this case”). (b)

As to each act of this case against the plaintiff et al., the defendant imposed each penalty surcharge on the plaintiff et al. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 88, 85, and 21 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 4 (1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 4 (1) and (2) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 46 (1) and 46 (2) [Attachment 5] 16 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant actions is unlawful, since there is no provision on the grounds that a penalty surcharge is imposed on the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Plaintiff

A place where passengers are aboard shall not be considered as a taxi boarding.

Plaintiff

Even if the place where passengers board the taxi falls under the scope of the taxi boarding stand, since the taxi stops due to the signal signal of the crosswalk while driving the taxi at that time, the passenger gets in the taxi driven by the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al. al. al. gets unless they get into the taxi due to the problem such as refusal of boarding. Therefore, it is not an act that disturbs the order

(2) The defendant's assertion that was enforced at the time of each of the dispositions in this case is parked in the taxi boarding car in accordance with Articles 88 (1), 85 (1) 21, and 21 (9) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act, and Article 44 (3) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.