1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiffs' request for revocation of the order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the attached list No. 3.

1. After remanding, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of each order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, which the Defendant sought against the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2013, but the first instance court dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance was modified before the remanding, and the defendant revoked the reduction of the number of vehicles listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 among the defendant's orders to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2, and dismissed

Therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against each part of the judgment of the party before remanding. The judgment of the remanded case reversed and remanded the part of the judgment of the party before remanding (the cancellation part of the order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the attached Table 3) against the defendant, and dismissed all the appeals by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the claim for cancellation of the order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the attached list 1 and 3 of the Plaintiff A corporation, and the claim for cancellation of the order to reduce the number of vehicles listed in the attached list 2 of the Plaintiff B corporation.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) is the passenger transport business entity that owns 101 taxiss in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) is the passenger transport business entity that operates taxi transport business with 101 taxiss in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Defendant against the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2013: “The Plaintiffs leased the Plaintiffs’ vehicles over 263 times in total by paying a monthly certain monthly rent for each vehicle from July 3, 2006 to September 14, 2010; the Plaintiff from March 2007 to September 30, 2010 by the same method, 233 times in total to H 294 times in total from April 2007 to September 30, 2010 to H 294 times in total from July 30, 207 to December 31, 208 to J 79 times in total.