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 corporation established for the purpose of transporting taxi transportation business for taxi passengers.

B. Around May 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the daily transport income of LF stations and YF stations from among the vehicles owned by the Plaintiff was different as indicated in the following table. Considering that the purchase cost of new vehicles equivalent to KRW 7,000, the difference was transferred to the taxi drivers, the Defendant issued a warning disposition on June 29, 2017 under Articles 12(1) (hereinafter “instant provisions”) and 18(1)1 of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act”), Article 21 and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the taxi Development Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). On March 2017, the difference of the standard amount of vehicle number (fluence) for the type of vehicle between seasons is 164,00 A7,000 LF (2017) / [based on recognition] 171,000 B; Gap evidence 1 through 4; Eul evidence 4 and 5 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The difference in the transportation revenue according to the model or the studio of a non-existent vehicle is aimed at improving the compensation or working conditions for the employees of the elderly, and is determined pursuant to the labor-management agreement prior to the enforcement of the instant provision, and thus does not constitute the transfer of the purchase cost of the taxi prohibited under the instant provision. 2) Even if the grounds for the instant disposition exist, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s violation of the taxi development Act, such as the transportation revenue based on the model or the studio type of the vehicle, even if there exist grounds for the instant disposition, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c).