In a case where Defendant C’s representative director of Defendant A Co., Ltd., the car rental business entity, was indicted for violating the Passenger Transport Service Act on the ground that Defendant C, who operates passenger transport business without obtaining a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, in collusion with the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd., in which the vehicle leasing business and the driver arrangement are combined with each other, managing and supervising the drivers provided by the manpower supplier, and if a large number of unspecified passengers request a vehicle by carrying out the app, the case holding that the Defendants were indicted on charges of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act on the ground that the Defendants were indicted on charges of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act, on the ground that: (a) a large number of unspecified passengers were on board the pertinent passenger; (b) a driver was sent the passenger location information to the driver near the relevant passengers; and (c) a driver was transported to the destination by means of a credit card stored in advance in the app; and (d) the driver was able to pay the fare to the passengers; and (b) a passenger was transported by using the car for passenger transport business;

Defendant C’s representative director of Defendant A Co., Ltd., the car rental business entity, in collusion with Defendant C Co., Ltd. to manage and supervise “a waiting area,” etc. of drivers supplied by a human resources supplier, including commuting time and break time, operation time, vehicle, and waiting for passengers,” in which the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd., the car rental business entity, in combination with the car leasing and the car driver’s arrangement to provide the passengers. If a number of unspecified passengers request a vehicle to operate a app, the vehicle owner is charged with passenger transport business without obtaining a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for passenger transport business (hereinafter “passenger transport business entity”) by sending the passenger location information to the close driver to the passenger and connecting the passengers. If the driver was to transport the passenger to the destination by transporting the passenger to the destination, the driver was charged with passenger transport business without obtaining a license from the passenger transport business entity using approximately 1,50 passenger transport business.

Considering that Defendant A’s business was established for the purpose of providing innovative passenger car rental services for the purpose of using a car rental business, and that Defendant C is a mobile platform developer that connects people based on the data, Defendant C entrusted part of the passenger car rental business to Defendant C, and accordingly, Defendants C’s business operation system installed on smartphones and purchased credit cards (hereinafter “TB”) with a view to the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between Defendant C and C’s online car rental business from B’s online passenger transport services for the purpose of using a new car rental business, and thus, it is reasonable to consider C’s provision of a new passenger car rental business for the purpose of increasing the number of passenger car rental businesses from B’s service for the purpose of using a new passenger car rental business for the purpose of using a new passenger car rental business for the purpose of using the new passenger car rental business at the same time as that of a new passenger car rental business for the purpose of using the new passenger car rental business for more than 10% of the new passenger car rental business for more than 3% of the new passenger car rental business for more than Seoul and its own convenience.

Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 2 subparag. 1, 3, and 4 of the Passenger Transport Service Act; Article 4(1), Article 34 of the Passenger Transport Service Act; Article 90 subparag. 1, 6-3, 7, and 93 of the Decree; Article 18 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Kim Tae-hun et al.

Law Firm Don, et al.

The Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 4 (○○○○○), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 4”), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 3”) established for the purpose of automobile siren business, carpeting and related brokerage business for the purpose of developing software, searching, developing and selling database, producing and developing contents, etc., and the representative director of Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 3 Company”).

Defendant 2 holds approximately 35% of the shares of Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 took over 100% of the shares of Defendant 4 around May 2018, and Defendant 4 commenced the Mothy service business to be provided to the passengers by combining the lease of 11-person car cars owned by Defendant 3 and the arrangement of drivers with the name of “Tada” (hereinafter “Ma”) around October 2018.

Any person who intends to operate passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and no rent-a-car business operator shall use his/her commercial automobiles

Nevertheless, the Defendants managed and supervised drivers to commute to and from their place of work, time to rest, vehicles to be operated by the drivers, waiting for passengers, etc. through the exclusive app for “Tada Rober,” etc. The Defendants: (a) let drivers work at the designated working hours as a garage for the 11-person passenger seat car car owned by Defendant 3; (b) assigned a specific car to the drivers; and (c) had the drivers move to and wait for “Tada” where passengers are anticipated to demand the passengers, such as the vicinity of the subway station; and (d) had the drivers move to the “Tada” zone where many unspecified passengers are in close vicinity to the relevant passengers, connected passengers and drivers by sending the passenger’s location information to the driver and connected them; and (c) have the drivers transport to the destination of the passengers by means of credit cards stored in the “Tada.”

Accordingly, around December 20, 2018, the Defendants: (a) transported the said passengers using the 11st passenger car car car (vehicle number omitted) owned by Defendant 3 using the 11st passenger car car car, which is a business car owned by Defendant 3; and (b) demanded the payment of KRW 8,200,00 with the credit card stored in the “Tada” app from October 8, 2018 to July 22, 2019; and (c) transported the passengers in the above way, using approximately 11,500 passenger car owned by Defendant 3, who used approximately 11,500 passenger car to sell.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to operate passenger transport business without obtaining a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and at the same time transported passengers by using car rental business operators.

2. Relevant statutes and legal principles

(a) Statutes;

Passenger Transport Service Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

1. The term "motor vehicle" means any passenger motor vehicle and bus referred to in Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act;

3. The term "passenger transport business" means a business that transports passengers for profit using automobiles to respond to demand from others;

4. The term "rent-a-car business" means a business that rents automobiles for profit to respond to demand from others;

Article 4 (License, etc.)

(1) Any person who intends to operate passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Provided, That any person who intends to operate passenger transport business prescribed by Presidential Decree shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Special Self-Govern

Article 34 (Prohibition, etc. of Onerous Transport)

(1) No person who rents a commercial motor vehicle of a rent-a-car business operator shall use it for transport with compensation or sublet it to any third person, and no person shall arrange for this.

(2) No one shall arrange any driver for any person who rents his/her commercial motor vehicle of a rent-a-car business operator: Provided, That in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as foreigners, disabled persons, etc.,

(3) No rent-a-car business operator shall use his/her commercial motor vehicle for passenger transport with compensation in response to the demand from any third person, and no person shall arrange such transport.

Article 90 (Penal Provisions)

Any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won:

1. Any person who operates passenger transport business without obtaining a license or making a registration under Article 4 (1), or who engages in activities similar to passenger transport business by using automobiles other than those referred to in Article 2 (referring to trucks, special automobiles, and two-wheeled automobiles under Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act);

6-3. A person who arranges a driver, in violation of Article 34 (2);

7. Any person who uses his/her commercial motor vehicle for passenger transport with compensation or arranges such transport, in violation of Article 34 (3);

Article 93 (Joint Penal Provisions)

If the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under Articles 90 through 92 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such offence.

Enforcement Decree of Passenger Transport Service Act

Article 18 (Limits of Permission for Mediation for Drivers)

"Cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as foreigners, disabled persons, etc." in the proviso to Article 34 (2) of the Act means the following cases:

1. Where a car rental business entity arranges a driver to any of the following lessees of a motor vehicle:

(a) A foreigner;

(b) Persons with disabilities registered under Article 32 of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act;

(c) A person aged 65 or older;

(d) The State or local governments;

(e) A corporation that rents a motor vehicle for a long time for at least six months;

(f) A person who rents a bus with 11 to 15 passengers on board;

(g) A person who rents a passenger motor vehicle with engine displacement of 3,00 cc or more for the purpose of direct passengers, using it for his/her marriage ceremony and its ancillary events;

B. Legal principles

1) The principle of no punishment

The principle of no punishment without the law requires that a crime and punishment shall be prescribed by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from the arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal authority. In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law shall be strict, and an excessively expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted as it is against the principle of no punishment without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). The principle of statutory interpretation applies likewise to the interpretation of the administrative law in cases where the provisions of the administrative law subject to the penal law are contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3126, Feb. 23, 1993).

However, in the interpretation of penal provisions, the method of systematic and logical interpretation that clearly expresses the logical meaning of the language and text in accordance with the legal systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the pertinent provision within the possible scope of the language and text is for the interpretation of the essential contents of the provision, and is in accordance with the principle of no punishment without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2162, Jun. 14, 2007). Unless it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the text of the law, it does not exclude the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative purpose and purpose, legislative history, etc. of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6525, May 12, 2006, etc.). However, in the interpretation of penal provisions, if it is favorable for the defendant, such interpretation beyond the language and text should be limited to cases where it is considerably contrary to equity and justice or seriously unreasonable, and unless so, it does not so, it should be respected with the legislative basis and discretion of the legislator (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4014.

2) Method of interpreting a juristic act

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of representation, and it is not difficult to understand only the language used. However, it is necessary to reasonably interpret the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of representation according to the contents of the language regardless of what the parties have expressed. In the event that the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the party’s language, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society and common sense of transaction, and common sense of transaction, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the form and content of the language; (b) the motive and background leading up to the juristic act; (c) the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the juristic act; and (d) transaction practices, etc., in light of social justice and equity; and (d) the interpretation of a non-permanent mixed contract. Such legal principle also applies to the interpretation of a non-permanent mixed contract; (d) since a number of elements of a typical contract are compatible and the legal effect corresponding thereto can be granted, it is necessary to determine the objective meaning of the parties’ act of representation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da.

3. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized:

A. As a result of a dispute arising from the deterioration of a strench business including articles previously permitted into a similar taxi business, Article 34(2) of the Passenger Transport Service Act was newly established in 2000 and prohibited from mediating the driver of a car rental business entity. However, the proviso to the same paragraph and Article 18 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “the Passenger Transport Service Act”) were recognized.

B. In 2007, Article 34(3) of the Passenger Transport Act and penal provisions were newly established to explicitly impose the general duty of prohibiting commercial transport on car rental operators with the reason of proposing to eradicate illegal commercial passenger transport activities by car rental operators such as taxi business.

C. Defendant 3 is a company established by Defendant 2 for the purpose of rent-a-car business, etc., which provides a platform in which the vehicle use method is innovative from August 201. Defendant 4 is a mobile platform developer that Defendant 1 connects people based on the data established in 2011.

D. In 2014, the scope of permission for the arrangement of drivers of car rental business has been extended due to the amendment of Article 18 subparag. 1(f) and (g) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act as the grounds for the amendment to promote the convenience of car lessees.

E. On October 2018, Defendant 3 accepted Defendant 4 companies to delegate part of rent-a-car business on behalf of others, or entrusted the reservation of rent-a-car services for buses including news articles.

F. Accordingly, the Defendants, through a mobile operation system from October 8, 2018, provide the following: (a) the Defendants, through the mobile operation system, with the members who registered and joined the payment credit card (hereinafter referred to as “other users”) with the app (hereinafter referred to as “the app”) installed in a smartphone; and (b) at the same time, with Nonindicted Co. 1 Company owned by Defendant 3, the number of passengers 11 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

4. Determination

(a) Whether other services constitute commercial passenger transportation prohibited by the Passenger Transport Act;

1) Legal relations between Defendant 3 and other users = Early short-term lease (e.g., rental)

A) In full view of the evidence and records duly examined and adopted by this Court, the following circumstances are revealed.

1. A car service contract with Defendant 3 is concluded by a user who agrees to the terms and conditions for bus lending services, including news agency services, and enters and confirms pre-contracts through apps. Defendant 4 is acting on behalf of Defendant 3 to enter into a driving service contract with other companies (Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of the Terms and Conditions for the Use of Car Rental Services, including news agency services, and Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions for the Use of Services).

2) The Defendant 3’s Company connects the users of divers with divers who were provided by the service companies that concluded a contract for tenant arrangement and driving service, and adjusts the fee system that combines the mobile distance and time with the fee system, the fee for the lease of the divers and the fee for the driving service, the fee for the brokerage, etc.

③ The Defendant 3’s typthmping of the typthroid driver is transferred to a waiting area (△△△△△△△△ Zone), etc. in which demand is assumed to be high due to artificial intelligence (AI), and the typ user has agreed to time with the destination and the 10-minute unit, and completed the use of the typing by getting off the typator at the destination after getting off the typ and getting off the typ at the destination.

④ Defendant 3 subscribed to liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, comprehensive automobile insurance (personal compensation, property compensation, self-physical accident) and automobile ‘injury insurance’ with respect to the car typists, Defendant 3 caused the users to be “insured insured” who can be deemed to have control over the automobile rental standard terms and conditions and the insured motor vehicle under social norms. In the event of the occurrence of the insurance accident, Defendant 3 provided that the automobile injury special terms and conditions are protected in preparation for the exemption from personal injury (kick).

B) Examining the above facts and circumstances in light of the relevant legal principles, it is reasonable to view that a series of contractual relationship between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3’s company’s service is a mobile app-based siren service that is embodied in connection with Defendant 4 company’s mother loan platform at the time when the user needs, and that the mobile app-based rental contract was concluded electronically between the user and Defendant 3.

C) We examine whether the transaction structure between the Defendant Company and the other users is merely the best act of taking the form of the rental of the passenger car, in light of the actual use relationship of the passenger car including the designation of the destination of other users, and the direction and supervision relationship of the Defendants with the other users in view of the direction and supervision relationship with the other users.

(l) It is reasonable for the company to use app 3 mobile app 4 to use it as a mobile phone, namely, to use it, to use it well-known or to display it through receipts after the termination of the services. The fact that the mobile platform does not affect the lessee status of the initial short-term rental house electronically concluded by the party to the contract, the place specified as location information by the call of the app 3 is to be refunded to the user at least once in advance due to the nature of the early short-term rental system, on the other hand, it is necessary to enter the destination at the time of call, but it is reasonable for the company to use it as a mobile phone 3 mobile app 4 to use it as a mobile phone , to use it as an essential sign of the car rental business to use it, to provide the user with information on the mobile phone 3 mobile phone 4 in order to provide the user with information on the mobile phone 10 minutes, and to use it as an information on the maintenance and management of the passenger's license to use it, to the extent that it is difficult to consider it as an essential sign of the car rental business.

2) 타다 이용자가 타다 승합차를 사용하여 이동하는 행위 ≠ 여객운송

A) Interpretation of passenger transport under the Passenger Transport Act

The prior meaning of passenger transport (passenger transport) is “snicking a traveler,” and no separate definition is provided in the Passenger Transport Act. Therefore, the meaning and scope of Article 90 subparags. 1 and 7 of the Passenger Transport Act (hereinafter “instant penal provision”) should be determined within the possible scope of the language and text.

In light of the above provision and the language and text of Article 2 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the Passenger Transport Act, it is reasonable to consider that the punishment provision of this case applies to passenger transport services for non-exclusive passenger transport services conducted by car rental business operators beyond the registered category of business, and that the act of leasing business operators' business cars clearly distinguishable from clearly in its legal relationship does not constitute the element of violation of prohibition of commercial transport.

Defendant 3 Co., Ltd., the instant car rental business entity, offered the instant car typ to the heading office and destination of the instant car typ to a third party via app, only for the implementation of the instant car typ rental agreement and the convenience of the users, and it is difficult to view it as having complied with the passenger’s demand in relation to the automobile transport contract. In other words, Defendant 3, a car rental business entity, is in the position of demanding the delivery of the first short-term rental car with Defendant 3 under the car typ rental agreement, and cannot be deemed as a passenger being transported according to the automobile transport contract.

Therefore, interpreting that the “passenger transport service provider’s fee-free passenger transport business that complies with the demand of another person includes not only a multi-party passenger taxi business, but also a passenger car lease within the scope permitted to arrange drivers, such as services, is considered not to be in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law by excessively expanding or analogically interpreting penal provisions beyond the possible meaning of the language and text. It is because interpreting and defining the meaning and scope of the penal provisions of this case based on the use relation in the offline of the mobile means is not allowed in light of the aforementioned legal principles as to the principle of no punishment without the law, which is the constitutional principle.

B) Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendants, through the external appearance of using sirens, transported the users to meet the needs of the other users, thereby providing a commercial passenger transport without permission.

As seen earlier in detail, ① the main purpose at the time of the enactment of the Passenger Transport Act was mainly regulating the act of causing a high risk of similar taxi business under the Passenger Transport Act, and the subject of the car rental business operator’s arrangement is extended to lease a car with 11 passengers and more than 15 passengers and less than 15 passengers in terms of relaxing the regulation on vehicle sharing promotion; ② The legislative history of the Passenger Transport Act was amended in the direction of the enactment of separate penal regulations for the lease of a car of a car rental business operator beyond the permissible scope of driver arrangement; ③ the arrangement of a car rental business operator by real-time heading, and the arrangement of a car rental service by a passenger car rental business operator at the same time, cannot be deemed as denying the transaction structure of a service via a platform and having caused economic effects such as commercial transport of passengers due to a different service.

B. The intent of Defendant 2 and Defendant 1

6) According to the legal principles, if other services were to constitute an element of punishment provision of this case, ① the number of passengers with less than the 2-year passenger transport service using the 1-2-year passenger transport service using the 5-year passenger transport service using the 8-year passenger transport service using the 5-year passenger transport service using the 1-2-year passenger transport service using the 1-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service, the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 5-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-year passenger transport service, the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 1-year passenger transport service using the 1-6-year passenger transport service using the 7-year passenger transport service using the 1-year passenger transport service, etc.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58

Judges Park Sang-gu