1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, from the Defendant, was a person who runs a private taxi transport business with a license under Article 3(1)2 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 12982, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) and Article 3 subparag. 2(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26064, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same), was equipped with “qualification for engaging in a private taxi transport business” under Article 24 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “qualification for engaging in a private taxi transport business”).

On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was convicted of committing a crime by compulsion of passengers from the Seoul Central District Court, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months of imprisonment. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On March 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) from March 20, 2015 pursuant to the proviso of Article 87(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Act, deeming that the cause under Article 24(4)2, 1(a), and 24(3)1(a) of the Passenger Transport Act (a) (a person who was under probation after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for committing an indecent act as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes) occurred.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with respect to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on September 1, 2015.

[Based on the recognition, Article 87(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Act of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 1, and the purport of the entire argument is as follows.