The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the resolution of the Ordinance of this case and the summary of the Ordinance Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as the whole of the arguments in each of the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

On April 11, 2014, the Defendant passed a resolution on the “Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs” (hereinafter “Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs”) proposed by its affiliated members, and transferred it to the Plaintiff at that time. The Plaintiff demanded reconsideration of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 30, 2014 on the ground that the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs contravenes the relevant statutes. However, the Defendant re-resolutiond the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport on May 7, 2014.

B. The Ordinance of this case was enacted based on Article 9(2)2(a) of the Local Autonomy Act, etc. to promote the traffic and welfare of residents living in the non-party public transportation area in the Seocho-gun, and determined matters concerning the operation of taxis upon the residents’ prior request and subsidization of the operating fee for the relevant residents.

(Articles 1 and 5). The summary of the order is that a registered taxi in the Sun-gun operated unlawfully at the request of residents is "village taxi" without setting a operating system in the non-party public transportation area where the buses in agricultural and fishing villages in the Chang-gun are not operated, and the community taxi operation committee has used the village taxi and paid the fees according to the time and place the residents have made a prior request, and after the residents reside in the area determined as the village taxi area, has paid the fees, the whole or part of the charges additionally incurred other than the prescribed charges to be borne by themselves, such as the amount equivalent to the basic fees for the bus per person for the number of users,

(Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 2, Articles 3 through 6, etc.). 2. Whether the Ordinance of this case is null and void by prescribing matters concerning the delegated affairs of an agency without delegation of Acts and subordinate statutes

A. Article 50(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act applies to the Plaintiff.