A taxi driver who was stripped of his license for overcharging foreign national passengers three times in one year took his case to court, claiming it was "unfair," but the court rejected his appeal, according to local media outlets Sunday.

A Seoul Administrative Court judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by a taxi driver, who had challenged the Seoul city government's decision to revoke his taxi license.

Most recently, in February last year, the taxi driver dropped off a foreign couple at Incheon International Airport. The fare on the meter showed 55,700 won ($41), but he then added an additional 16,600 won, bringing the total fare displayed to 72,300 won. The driver accepted 72,000 won in cash from the passengers and was later caught for overcharging them.

But it was not his first offense. He had previously been caught twice in 2022 -- once in April and again in August -- for inflating toll fees or applying unauthorized surcharges again specifically to passengers of foreign nationality. He was given a warning after the first offense and a 30-day suspension after the second.

After his third violation, the Seoul city government revoked his taxi license, to which the driver reacted by filing an administrative lawsuit, claiming that the third incident had been "unfair."

In court, he claimed that 6,600 won of the additional 16,600 won was for a one-way toll and that the remaining 10,000 won was a tip for handling three large suitcases, thus not constituting overcharging, according to him.

However, the court dismissed this claim, saying it is not normal for a driver to enter a tip directly into the meter if, as the driver claimed, the passengers intended to give him a tip voluntarily. The court stated that it would have been more appropriate for the driver to display only the actual fare and toll on the meter, allowing the passengers to decide whether or not to add a tip separately.

The man then claimed that revoking his taxi license simply because he had overcharged foreign passengers 10,000 won was a disproportionately harsh application of the law.

In the end, the court rejected this claim as well, determining, "It cannot be seen as 'less illegal' simply because he used various ways to overcharge foreigners in a short period of time," adding, "The plaintiff can take the test again after a year, and if he qualifies, then drive a taxi (at that time)."