Shindo Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

June 2, 2004

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2002Guhap28125 delivered on June 27, 2003

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the annexed vehicle list for the plaintiff on August 1, 2002.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be explained in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the part (1) of the “(1) total management system” of the “2.c. judgment”) from the 16th page to the 15th page of the judgment of the first instance [the part (1) of the “2.c. judgment”] as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

“(1) Whether the total management system has been violated

(A) Facts of recognition

In light of the facts that the Plaintiff’s total number of days of delivery exceeds 1 to 3, 2, 8, and 10G earnings for each of the 2-month workers’ 5-month wage management services, and that the Plaintiff’s total number of days of payment exceeds 1, 2, 6, 12, and 4-1 through 7, 168, and 10-1 and 4-10 of the average number of days of payment for each of the 2-month workers’ wages management services and the Plaintiff’s total number of days of payment for each of the 10-month wage management services and the 2-month wage management services for each of the 2-month workers’ wages management services, regardless of the number of days of payment for each of the 10-month wage management services, the Plaintiff’s total number of days of payment for each of the 10-month wage management services and the 2-month wage management services for each of the 2-month workers’ wages management services for each of the 2-month workers’ wages management services.

(B) Whether the total management system has been violated

According to the above facts, the plaintiff continued to return the transportation revenue in excess of the standard transportation revenue to workers from the time of receiving the first administrative fine to the time of receiving the fourth administrative fine, while managing the transportation revenue in excess of the standard transportation revenue by imposing the transportation revenue on workers. In addition, if the standard transportation revenue falls short of the standard transportation revenue, the plaintiff has deducted the amount receivable from the total of the basic salary and the allowances paid to workers. Accordingly, we examine whether the method of managing the transportation revenue in such form violates the so-called "total management system of transportation revenue" under Article 22 (1) of the Automobile Passenger Transport Business Act.

The legislative intent of introducing the above system of total transport earnings is to improve the problems such as the method of operating regular transport earnings and the method of wage in the general taxi industry prior to the enforcement of the above provision of the law, and to pay a fixed taxi commission (fixed taxi commission) to a transport business entity who is a transport employee. However, although the method of managing transport earnings and paying wages was so called the so-called "fixed taxi commission scheme" which provides for a transport employee who has paid taxi commission, it is possible to enable the general taxi business entity to evade taxes and illegal activities through the aforementioned system, such as entry into a contract and contract, and to ensure his livelihood as it is difficult for the transport employee to expect the business entity to take an unstable basis of livelihood and to secure revenues other than taxi commissions, and thus, it is also necessary to improve the regulatory purpose of the above provision to regulate the amount of monthly taxi commission scheme, which is to ensure the safety and order of the passenger transport employee, and to improve the quality of the above provision of the taxi service through the implementation of the new provision of the provision to regulate the amount of monthly taxi commission.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above act is deemed to be an act violating Article 22 (1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act which provides the total amount management system of transportation revenue, and if the above provision has been violated at least three times within one year from the date of disposition of a fine for negligence, it shall be deemed that it constitutes an administrative disposition under Article 76 (1) of the same Act, unless the above provision is violated (if it is recognized that the above provision has been violated, and if a decision not to impose a fine for negligence has been made after

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Mobile-Smoking (Presiding Judge)