1. The Defendant’s reimbursement disposition of KRW 138,863,520 against the Plaintiff on April 29, 2014 exceeds KRW 57,192,515.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a passenger transport business entity who owns approximately 54 licensed taxiss including about 28 taxi vehicles in attached Form 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant taxi”) in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “attached Table 1”), and operates a taxi transport business.

B. On June 14, 201, the Defendant issued an order to voluntarily return the certificate and registration number plate of the 29 cab (the instant cab and A cab) to the competent Gu office by July 14, 201 pursuant to Articles 85(1)13 and 89(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 12 of the Passenger Transport Service Act prohibiting the use of the name (hereinafter “Transportation Service Act”) and caused a third party to operate the instant cab as follows: (a) the Defendant voluntarily returned the certificate and registration number plate of the 29 cab (the instant cab and A cab) to the competent Gu office; and (b) order to reduce the number of automobiles (hereinafter “instant order to reduce the number”).

C. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant order to reduce the number of vehicles (201Guhap21416) with the competent court (hereinafter “instant order to reduce the number of vehicles”). On July 18, 2011, the instant court rendered a decision to suspend the execution of the instant order to reduce the number of vehicles until the pronouncement of the first instance judgment

(2011Ah2012) d.

On February 16, 2012, the court revoked the order to reduce the number of taxis B, C, and D from among the 29 taxis that the Plaintiff received an order to reduce the number of taxiss (hereinafter “instant winning taxi”) and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the remaining 26 taxiss.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Court on February 20, 2012, and the Defendant appealed to the Seoul High Court on March 7, 2012 (2012Nu7150), and the Seoul High Court revoked the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance on November 2, 2012, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked portion, and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed against this and appealed on March 22, 201, but the Supreme Court made the plaintiff's appeal on March 28, 2013.