1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 21, 1993, the Defendant issued an order to improve the business operation of taxi companies, based on Article 25 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), which provides that "the former vehicle garage after the end of the day operation shall be put into the front vehicle garage after the day operation, and the driver's workplace shall be put into the vehicle garage within the company garage."

B. On March 20, 2008, pursuant to Article 24 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8980, Mar. 21, 2008), the Defendant issued an order for business improvement, which prohibits the management outside of the garage (hereinafter “instant order for business improvement”), including where a driver fails to take the vehicle on the company garage after the termination of operation, and where the driver does not take the vehicle on the vehicle, etc. (hereinafter “order for business improvement”).

C. The Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, reported to the Defendant the land equivalent to KRW 1,160.08 square meters located in 69 Mandong-ro 49 (Seongdong 2 A) as a garage (hereinafter “first notification”), and the Defendant accepted the said report on November 7, 2012.

On May 1, 2013, the Cheongan Transportation Co., Ltd. leased a 231 square meters of land and a building on land (the office whose area is 20 square meters) located in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to KRW 10 million from May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2015. On May 2, 2013, 2013, the Defendant filed a report on the alteration of the passenger transport service plan with the purport of expanding the above land and the above land and the building on the ground (24.4 square meters) to the second notification.

On May 15, 2013, pursuant to Article 10 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Transportation Service Act”) and Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant accepted the registration of modification on the extension of the garage for fixed transport.

hereinafter referred to as "the case."