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 taxi transportation business entity that operates a regular taxi transportation business after obtaining a license.

B. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a warning disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 12 and 18 of the Development of Taxi Business Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff arbitrarily set a certain amount of money (50 liters a day) without any law or any other ground, and applied it to A, who is a taxi driver, from June 1, 2017 to July 10, 2017, thereby deducting KRW 85,300 when paying remuneration.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the case of taxi transport business, the operation of the taxi transport business goes beyond the control of the taxi transport business entity, and thus, it is inevitable to set the limit of the ordinary amount of oil expenses. In light of the unique characteristics of the taxi transport business, setting the limit of the amount of oil used and imposing part of the excess oil expenses cannot be deemed to have violated Article 12(1) of the taxi generation Act (hereinafter “the provision prohibiting the transfer of transport expenses”).

B) Article 21 Section 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act (hereinafter “instant provision”)

(1) Article 26(2) of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that “Where a general taxi driver is subject to a fine for negligence in violation of Article 26(2) of the said Act (hereinafter “Rules”), the said provision shall not apply to the case where the relevant general taxi driver is charged with transportation expenses.” However, as A violated the total management system, the instant disposition based on the violation of the said provision against the prohibition against the transfer of transportation expenses is unlawful.