Text
1. The Defendant’s order to reduce the number of taxis (B, C, D, and E) to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2013 shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
Details of the disposition
The plaintiff is a passenger transport business operator who has approximately 85 taxiss in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and is engaged in transportation business.
On March 22, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to reduce the number of taxis pursuant to Article 76(1)13 of the Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition against the use of name under Article 13 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) from October 2007 to February 28, 2008, allowing other persons to operate passenger transport business.
(2) The Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the instant taxi driver and had the instant taxi operated under the direction and supervision of the Plaintiff, on the following grounds: (a) there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the instant taxi driver; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant disposition was legitimate; (c) the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the instant taxi driver; and (d) the Plaintiff’s allegation as to whether the instant disposition
G and H’s use of the Plaintiff’s name is merely an intermediate manager for the supply and demand of drivers, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that they independently run passenger transport business that excludes the Plaintiff is unlawful.
Even if G and H operate passenger transport business using the instant taxi, the Defendant, at the time of the act that caused the instant disposition, deemed the grounds for the disposition as a violation of an order to improve business, not using the name, and imposed a partial suspension of business or penalty surcharge.
However, it is against the principle of trust protection or the principle of self-regulation of administration, and it is against the principle of invalidation and equality. Thus, the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion.