1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are companies running taxi transportation business.

Since 197, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has implemented a full-time management system of transportation revenue that taxi transportation business entities receive from passengers, and to investigate whether taxi transportation business entities comply with the full-time management system of transportation revenue, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has requested the taxi transportation business entities to submit a wage agreement in accordance with the wage organization agreement every year.

B. On October 15, 2013, Seoul Special Metropolitan City: (a) concluded a wage organization agreement with each company to investigate whether taxi transportation business entities, including the Plaintiffs, comply with the total fare management system; and (b) demanded each company to submit a written wage agreement by October 18, 2013.

In addition, on October 24, 2013, Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the taxi transportation business entities in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the plaintiffs, that if they refuse to submit a wage agreement again, administrative fines may be imposed.

However, as the plaintiffs failed to comply with the above demands, the public officials belonging to Seoul Special Metropolitan City visited the office of the plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 to examine whether the plaintiffs observe the total amount management system of transportation revenue and demanded to submit a wage agreement form prepared pursuant to the wage organization agreement in 2013, but the plaintiffs refused to comply with such request.

C. In accordance with Article 75 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) and Article 37(1)16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act”), the Defendant, who is delegated the authority to impose penalty surcharges by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in succession, delegated the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to impose penalty surcharges by the Defendant, on February 20, 2014, refused, obstructed,