logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.12.09 2014구합14136
과징금부과처분취소
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 company running taxi transport business with a license for passenger transport service (license 184) from the Defendant.

B. On January 21, 1993, pursuant to Article 25 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), the Defendant issued an order to improve the business of the so-called “Prohibition of Management outside the garage” with the content that all vehicles shall be stored in the company garage after the end of operation every day, and that the driver's work belt shall be conducted within the company garage.

C. On March 20, 2008, the Defendant issued an order to improve all passenger transport service providers pursuant to Article 24 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8980, Mar. 21, 2008) to prohibit “an act of leaving a vehicle without a transport employee’s entry into the company garage after the completion of operation,” and a business improvement order prohibiting “out the company garage management” (hereinafter “order to improve the business in this case”).

On May 2, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty of KRW 1.2 million on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 23, 85(1)22, and 88(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act on the ground that the Plaintiff-affiliated taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) did not receive at least 24 hours from November 2, 2013 to November 3, 2013 on the garage for at least 24 hours, and thus, the Defendant violated the instant order to improve the business, which is prohibited from managing the garage.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 3, Gap’s No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not manage the instant taxi outside the garage.

B, an engineer of the instant taxi, is the first person.

arrow