logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.18 2018구합3806
자동차운수사업 관련 법 위반 과징금부과 처분 취소
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 private taxi transport business entity B.

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant appears to have written notice on May 1, 2018 (attached Table 5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15735, Aug. 14, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 28793, Apr. 10, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 28793, hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Decree of the same Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff engaged in a business without using a meter up to the Incheon Bupyeong Market Station around 20:30 on March 11, 2018,” and “attached Table 3” appears to be a clerical error.

Accordingly, the penalty surcharge of KRW 400,000 was imposed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff offered the amount first to the passengers who were not in the taxi, and offered the amount to the destination, and operated the taxi as above under mutual agreement, and thus, there are extenuating circumstances for not using the distance. Therefore, the instant disposition, which did not take account of these circumstances, is an error of law that deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to Article 21(12) of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 46(1) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, passenger transport service providers and transport passengers without using a meter at a place other than the area where the section of passenger transport service is implemented, it can be seen that the imposition of a penalty surcharge is set at KRW 400,000 for such violation.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that there is a reason to consider the calculation of the penalty surcharge as alleged by the Plaintiff, and Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides the degree and frequency of driver's negligence.

arrow