logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2021.02.03 2020구단17290
택시운수종사자경고처분취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

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

② On April 13, 2019, a passenger who was placed in D, a marriage ceremony located near C Station, was boarding the instant taxi at the Gangnam Station around Gangnam-gu around 13:28, and left the said taxi at approximately 250 meters away from D’s 13:40 meters in a straight line, and the passenger’s children were reported to the Defendant by telephone around 18:47 on the same day.

The details of the report shall be as follows:

The person who moved from Gangnamnam Station to 5 out of C Station:

b. The article said that the article D, the article of which is a mixture of fakes, stated that “I am blick with a passenger Handphone as I do not know of the English name, and I am blick.”

b. The article provides that the passenger will leave the article to the destination.

In such words, whether the taxi will not have any meaning;

“In the instant case, the author respondeded to “the name in the English language,” and asked the two actors who had been in the middle of the household distance to her, who had been able to find it difficult to do so, and asked them to her.” Even though the report was made to her, the article was her “sal” before the elapse of the C calendar distance, despite the fact that the article was “salat.”

b. Whether a passenger is not using a taxi even if he/she is well aware of the fact;

“Is the meaning of taxi boarding?” and “Is the meaning of taxi boarding?”

“Notwithstanding the resistance to the port of destination, the article did not go to the destination, and at the time of settlement and unloading by the passengers, the article referred to the direction of the exit No. C. 8 calendar and the article "to go to the port. to the port."

(B) On November 5, 2019, the Defendant, upon prior notification, refused to take passengers in the Gangnam Station around April 13, 2019 against the Plaintiff.

“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) This shall be applicable.

arrow