1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle indicated in attached Form 1, as indicated in the Plaintiff.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the order to reduce the number of vehicles as indicated in the attached Form 1 and the claim for revocation of the disposition to restrict the change of business plan, which was made by the Defendant on October 27, 2014, in the form of simple consolidation. The first instance court dismissed the part seeking revocation of the above order to reduce the number of vehicles and accepted the part seeking revocation of the disposition

Accordingly, since only the plaintiff appealed on the part of the loss, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the claim for the cancellation of the above reduction order.

2. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the pertinent part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

3. Whether the instant order to reduce the number of vehicles is legitimate

A. In full view of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not report the business suspension before the expiration of the business suspension period for the instant bus is due to the mistake of the Plaintiff’s employee, who had known that the automatic extension of the business suspension period would have been automatically extended, and that the return of the registration license plate was caused by minor negligence, not intentional or gross negligence, and that the violation was insignificant, and that there was little damage to the users, as the content and degree of the violation were insignificant, and that there was no injury to the users, before the instant case, only once before the instant case did not commit the same violation, there was a cause for mitigation under Article 43 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and thus, the instant order to reduce the number of automobiles to which the Plaintiff exceeded this is erroneous by exceeding

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

C. (1) Determination in relation to Article 43(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act

2. Individual standards:

(a) Passenger transport business operators under subparagraph 16 (b) and (d);