1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who acquired a taxi driver’s license on February 13, 1992, and is affiliated with the Geum Pung Transportation Co., Ltd. from May 22, 2015 and is engaged in driving service of taxi transportation business.

B. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition under the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “the Taxi Development Act”) on the ground that he/she refused passengers to take passengers without justifiable grounds.

C. On March 27, 2018, at around 22:15, the public official in charge of the defendant set up a report on detection of the violation (hereinafter “the report on detection of the violation”) and a control manual (hereinafter “instant control manual”) after investigating the passengers and the Plaintiff, at the taxi platform in front of the Seoul B building, immediately drop the passengers (hereinafter “instant passengers”).

On April 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a prior notice and hearing procedure, and around March 22:15, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to take passengers in front of the Seoul building without justifiable grounds, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending the qualification of taxi drivers 30 days (from May 10 to June 10, 2018) in accordance with Article 16 of the Taxi Development Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Taxi Development Act”), and the attached Table, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that, around 22:15, at the taxi platform in front of the building B, the passengers of this case were aboard the Plaintiff’s taxi and asked the passengers of this case to take a walk, and that the passengers of this case should go back to the opposite direction to the passengers of this case, the Plaintiff asked the passengers of this case whether he was able to go back to the opposite direction. The passengers of this case were able to get off the taxi, and the passengers of this case were able to get off the taxi, and they were able to get off the taxi.