(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.02.17 2016구합57663

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.02.17 2016구합57663

과징금부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a private taxi transport business using B-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

B. On July 25, 2013, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the improvement order of passenger transport business as follows pursuant to Article 23(1)9 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 12377, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) pursuant to Article 23(1)9 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act:

(hereinafter referred to as the "Improvement Order in this case"). In the event of a violation of the provisions of the laws and regulations related to the use in the Gu, the taxi business entity shall install a card settlement terminal for the payment of taxi fares for the convenience of taxi passengers, and the location of the card terminal shall be installed as follows - The equipment main body that can recognize the card shall be on the front left (on the front left between the seat of the driver and the chief of the steering) - The identification card recognition box box box of the IC card shall be able to use the pre-payment and the post-payment camera in all, and in the event of a normal failure, the operation shall be suspended and maintained immediately, and in the event of a failure to do so, a transport business entity shall install the card settlement terminal for the payment of the taxi fares: A trucking business entity shall install the card settlement terminal for the payment of the taxi fares; and a trucking business entity shall partially suspend his/her business in accordance with Article 23 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act [Attachment 54] and a penalty surcharge in accordance with Article 212.3 million

C. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff was found to be a public official of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City traffic order control in violation of the instant improvement order at the C filling Office in violation of the instant improvement order.

On February 3, 2016, the Defendant violated the instant improvement order to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, is punished by a penalty surcharge of KRW 600,000.

참조조문

-여객자동차 운수사업법 제23조

-여객자동차 운수사업법 제23조 제1항 제9호

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.01.20 2016구합53234

-서울행정법원 2016.03.24 2015구합60471

-서울행정법원 2017.02.02 2016구합53227

-서울행정법원 2017.03.10 2016구합57625

-서울행정법원 2015.03.26 2014구합19285