[2] The case holding that in a case where the Yangsan-si issued a license for private taxi transport business and issued a disposition to determine and publicly notify the license holder by calculating his driving experience on the basis of the fulfillment of the condition of "ongoing service from January 1 to the end of the last day" under the premise of applying Article 6 (3) and (5) of the "Rules on the Management of Private Taxi License Services",

[2] In a case where the Yangsan-si issued a license for private taxi transport business and issued a disposition to determine and publicly notify the person eligible for the license by calculating the driving experience on the basis of the fulfillment of the premise that both “the provision on the recognition of driving experience of at least 50% of the number of actual working days for at least 50% of the number of actual working days” and “the provision on the calculation of the number of actual working days for less than 50% of the number of actual working days after adding up the number of actual working days for less than 50% of the number of total working days” under Article 6(3) and (5) of the “Rules on the Management of Personal Taxi License Services in Gyeyang-si” and “the provision on the calculation of the number of actual working days for less than 50% of total working days from January 1 to the last day”

The private taxi transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative act that grants specific persons rights or interests, and barring special provisions in the statutes, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency to establish the standard of the method of recognition of driving career within the specified order for the license (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu13061, Feb. 13, 1998; 2007Du4353, Mar. 15, 2007; 2007Du4353, Mar. 15, 2007; 2007; 2007Du414, Jan. 22, 2002; 2001Du8414, etc.).

In full view of the facts admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the relevant statutes, the following facts are revealed.

Article 17(1) and (7) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 6) provides that if the defendant had worked for not less than 10 months in the same 7-month period as the 9-month driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 7-month driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 7-month driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 7-month driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 7-month driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 9-day driver's 7-month employee's 9-day employee's 9-day employee's 9-day employee's 7-month employee's 9-day employee's 9-day employee's 10-day employee'.

The court below determined that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the following circumstances: (a) the so-called monthly standard that the person shall continue to work from the first day of the corresponding month to the last day can be deemed as the premise for the application of Article 6(3) and (5) of the above licensing rules; (b) driving experience refers to the actual working period; and (c) Article 6(3) and (5) of the licensing rules provide that if the person works for a certain number of days on the basis of the total number of days per month in consideration of the working environment and welfare of the taxi driver, it is exceptional provision that recognizes the whole number of the relevant month as driving experience; and (d) the Plaintiff’s employment month or retirement month of the taxi company without considering the actual working day and recognized the whole month as driving experience, it would result in unreasonable results that the actual working period would exceed the actual working period; and (e) Article 6(2) of the licensing rules that exclude the period of temporary retirement, strike, company management service, etc. does not comply with the principle of equity.

However, it is clear that Article 6 (3) and (5) of the License Rule of this case does not stipulate the above premise that the defendant's claim is not a premise for its application. Thus, in order to recognize the plaintiff's priority on the ground of the above premise differently, the recognition of priority in accordance with the above provision should be deemed objectively unreasonable in light of the above legal principles. In light of the following circumstances, the grounds cited by the court below alone are difficult to acknowledge it or it is inappropriate to serve as

First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the calculation method of driving experience under Article 6(3) and (5) of the instant licensing rules is not an aggregate provision of more than 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the 50% of the above 50% of the 50% preferential provision is clear that the above 50% of the above 50% of the above 50% of the 50% preferential provision is a provision to give preferential treatment to regular taxi drivers who are expected to continue to serve every month. However, the above 10% of the above 10% of the above 10% of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 3th day of the 1st day of the working.

However, in the case of a provision on preferential treatment exceeding 50% of the license rules under Article 6 (3) of the license rules as part of the court below's point of view, even in the case of a provision on preferential treatment exceeding 50% of the total number of actual working days in the middle of a month, if it is applied as it is as it is, it may lead to a contradiction that the number of actual working days is longer higher than the number of actual working days. However, as seen above, the above provision on preferential treatment exceeding 50% is clear that it is a provision on preferential treatment for regular working employees who are premised on their continuous work every month, it can be interpreted as applicable only to the case of every month of maturity (in the case of a month other than full-time work, the above provision on preferential treatment shall be applied, and thus, it is not necessary to deem that the above provision on preferential treatment needs to be satisfied even

If it is deemed that the above aggregate provision does not apply to the above aggregate provision, the 37th day of April 8, 199, June 10, July 3, 1999, July 7, 2009, May 9, 2008, and May 13, 2008 under Article 6(3) and (5) of the License Rules, the 11th day of February if the calculation is made on a monthly basis based on the 13th day of full attendance, and the remaining driving experience (work experience between May 3, 199 and August 2008 from large traffic) of October 3, 199, which is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, constitutes a total of 9 years of operation of the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, contrary to this, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principle of license standards for recognition of driving experience in the automobile transport business license and its interpretation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)