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 acquired a private taxi transport business license and operated a private taxi transport business with B as a small-scale vehicle, while driving a drinking-water vehicle, and caused the Plaintiff to be injured by a traffic accident.

(A) On July 28, 2015, the driver's license of a motor vehicle was revoked on the ground of (e.g., a motor vehicle accident).

B. On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff re-acquisitions a driver’s license (Class 1) on August 3, 2016, and purchases K 5 vehicles, and runs a personal taxi transport business again from September 3, 2016.

C. On May 15, 2017, Gyeonggi-do notified the Defendant of the method of cancelling the qualification for taxi drivers, etc. under the Passenger Transport Service Act, by reflecting the result of a specific audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection (from March 3, 2016 to March 30, 2016) by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on the guidance and supervision of the duties of cancelling the qualification for taxi drivers of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in 2016.

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to drive a commercial motor vehicle is revoked due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act; (b) Articles 85(1)37 and 87(1)8 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14716, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Article 43(1) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28793, Apr. 10, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Individual standards:

A. Pursuant to 35 and Article 59(1) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, the Plaintiff’s private taxi transport business license and the qualification for taxi driving was revoked.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). 【No ground for recognition”, 【No evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and the relevant laws and regulations.

As to this, the Plaintiff.