1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 5, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of suspending the Plaintiff’s qualification for 30 days from April 9, 2019 to May 8, 2019, on the ground that “The Plaintiff had already been subject to a disposition of a fine for negligence on the ground of refusal to take passengers, but around 02:40 on November 19, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sent from the place where the instant report was filed to the front of Seoul subway 2 located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “C”); (b) whether it is possible to bring the passengers to active service and refuse to take passengers; and (c) it constitutes the second violation of Article 40,00 won of the fine for negligence and the Plaintiff’s refusal to take passengers.”

Around that time, the Plaintiff stated to the Defendant that there was no refusal of boarding at the relevant time and place, and that there was no fact that the fine for negligence was imposed on the ground of refusal of boarding in the past, and that it does not constitute

On March 6, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending qualification for 400,000 won and 30 days (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspending qualification”) to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of the instant case as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence No. 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: November 19, 2018; thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of the instant case is legitimate is being made; thus, it did not refuse boarding as stated in the above report.

The Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspension of qualification for 30 days immediately due to the act of Paragraph 1(a), although the Plaintiff was not subject to a warning due to the act of refusal of boarding in the past.

This is illegal beyond the limit of discretion given to the defendant, such as contrary to the disposition standards set out in the enforcement rules of the Act on the Development, etc. of Taxi Transportation Business.

The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 14, and 15 and the purport of the whole pleadings.