The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a transport employee who drives Csi owned by B.

B. On September 18, 2019, around 00:04, the Plaintiff was discovered to be an act of refusing passengers in front of the E located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and on November 12, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a warning disposition and an scheduled imposition of an administrative fine of KRW 200,000 on the ground of the above refusal of passengers, and notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled imposition of an administrative fine of KRW 200,000 on the ground of the above refusal of passengers and notified the Plaintiff

C. On December 10, 2019, the Defendant received a written opinion from the Plaintiff, and on December 19, 2019, imposed an administrative fine of KRW 200,000 (hereinafter “instant administrative fine”) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 23(2)1 and 16(1)1 of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “the Taxi Development Act”) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to take passengers.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s main main part of the safety resistance 1) The Plaintiff thought that it was locked due to the Plaintiff’s well-knownness of a passenger’s walk, and did not refuse the boarding, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the imposition of the instant fine for negligence is unjustifiable on the ground that “an act of refusing passengers or allowing passengers to leave the taxi on the way without justifiable grounds” under Article 16(1)1 of the Taxi Development Act was not “an act of refusing passengers or getting passengers to leave the taxi on the way.” Accordingly, the Defendant’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful as seeking revocation of the notice of imposition of the

B. Articles 20(1) and (2), 21(1), 25, 36(1), and 38(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Public Order Acts provide that a party dissatisfied with the imposition of a fine for negligence by an administrative agency may file an objection in writing with the administrative agency within 60 days of receipt of the notice of imposition of the fine for negligence, and where an objection is filed, the disposition imposing the fine for negligence shall lose its effect, and where an objection is raised, the objection shall be raised.