1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running taxi transportation business with Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its business area.

B. On July 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a warning disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 12(1) and 18(1) of the former Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (amended by Act No. 15123, Nov. 28, 2017; hereinafter “taxis Development Act”) and Article 21 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred oil to transport employees.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on October 19, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Article 21 [Attachment 2] 1-B of the Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act, since the defendant's defense prior to the merits was not discovered by the time one year elapsed since the disposition of this case was taken.

paragraphs 2 and 2-A

No aggravated sanctions under paragraph (1) may be imposed.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition.

B. There is no benefit in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a disposition, etc. which is the object of a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed by the remaining disposition, after the disposition, etc. becomes null and void due to the lapse of the effective period, the execution of such disposition and other causes.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7835, Oct. 23, 2003). Meanwhile, it is stipulated in law that the power of administrative disposition is treated disadvantageously in the future, and thus becomes a requirement for statutory aggravation, and thereafter, is new according to the requirements for statutory aggravation.