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 company that employs approximately 160 taxi drivers who work in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its business area and operates a general taxi transport business. The Defendant is an institution entrusted with supervisory affairs concerning taxi transport business by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Act on the Development of Taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “si Development Act”).

B. On May 25, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that he/she received a certain differential rate from taxi drivers who drive “K5” vehicles belonging to the Plaintiff during the period from April 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017, according to the annual formula of the relevant vehicle (as of July 15, 2015, the date of departure) and issued a warning to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of prohibition on the transfer of transportation cost (as of July 15, 2015).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In addition to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with any specific administrative guidance on the prohibition of the pre-sale of transport costs prior to the instant disposition, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may determine the daily standard transport revenues by mutual agreement with the taxi drivers on June 25, 2015, when setting the amount of daily standard transport revenues pursuant to a collective agreement concluded with the taxi employer on June 25, 2015, prior to the enforcement of Article 12 of the taxi Development Act. Accordingly, there was no reason to dispose of the instant disposition, since Article 12 of the taxi Development Act does not apply retroactively to the contents of the said collective agreement. 2) As such, the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with any specific administrative guidance on the prohibition of the pre-sale of transport costs prior to the instant disposition, and in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs