1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is a person who is engaged in private taxi transport business using Csi and Dsi (hereinafter “each of the instant taxi”).

B. On July 25, 2013, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced an order for business improvement containing the following matters pursuant to Article 23(1)9 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) pursuant to Article 23(1)9 of the same Act:

(hereinafter referred to as the "order for Business Improvement". In the event of a violation of the provisions of the laws and regulations related to the use in the Gu, taxi transport business operators shall install a card settlement terminal for the payment of taxi fares: The location of the card terminal shall be as follows for the convenience of taxi passengers - The equipment main body that can recognize the card shall be left (inter between the driver's seat and the chief) - The card-type card-type card-type card-type card-type card-type card-type card box shall be able to use the pre-payment and the post-payment card; if the card-type is not operated normally, it shall be suspended operation and shall be maintained immediately; if the card-type is not operated normally, the taxi business operators shall install the card settlement terminal for the payment of the taxi fares; the card-type shall be installed for the convenience of taxi passengers; the card-type shall be installed for the convenience of the taxi passengers; the card-type; the card-type shall be suspended from operation in accordance with Article 234 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act;

C. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff A operated a taxi on December 21, 2015, Plaintiff B around 14:52 on December 29, 2015, and around 14:52 on December 29, 2015, Plaintiff A operated a taxi without attaching a card device on the container locks between the driver’s seat of each of the instant taxi and the chief knife, and was exposed to public officials belonging to Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The Defendant’s penalty surcharge on February 11, 2016 on the grounds that the Plaintiffs did not comply with the instant order for business improvement.