(b) Interpretation of the provision that a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years as of the date of application for a license, which is a requirement for class 2 (d) of the Guidelines for Private Taxi License in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is not a person re-employed after retirement;

B. The provision that a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years as of the date of application for a license, which is a requirement for the second grade (D) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's guidelines for private taxi licenses, is not a person re-employed after retirement, shall be objectively reasonable. The meaning of the above provision, which excludes a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years after retirement, shall be interpreted to mean that a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years, is not a person who has been re-employed, but a person who has served in the same taxi company after retirement is deemed to have been re-employed for at least seven years, even if the period of service after retirement was seven years after the date of re-employment, should be interpreted to mean that a person who is a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years,

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Inasmuch as a license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing a specific right, and unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, and the establishment of the standards for recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful to determine the calculation of driving experience based on the above, unless it appears that the established standards are objectively unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu692, May 29, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1257, Mar. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3984, Dec. 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2918, Jul. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu704, Nov. 12, 191; Supreme Court Decision 201Nu2136, Nov. 26, 1991).

However, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport on March 29, 1989, and amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 960 on September 27, 1991) provides that a person whose long-term period of continuous service in the same taxi company as of the date of application for a license shall be an individual taxi license-issuance priority. The above Seoul Special Metropolitan City's guidelines also provides that a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years shall be the second class in order to restrain workers' migration and encourage long-term continuous service in order to provide stable transportation services. The purpose of this provision is to give preferential treatment to a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years after his/her first year after his/her continuous service in the same taxi company, except for a case where a person who has served in the management office is not re-employment due to his/her continuous service experience. The first provision provides that a person who has been found to have been employed in the same taxi transport business after his/her first seven years or more after his/her new employment.

Therefore, even if the defendant stated that he was re-employed after leaving the taxi company's employment list, etc., he shall not be deemed to be a person who has served in the same taxi company for at least seven years, but shall be confirmed whether his employment relationship has been actually continued by other data submitted or investigated by the administrative agency. The court below also determined that the plaintiff is not a person who has served for at least seven years in the same taxi company, which is the requirement for the second class D in the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City's guidelines, solely on the ground that the plaintiff is a person who has been re-employed after leaving the taxi company after leaving the taxi company. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the criteria for recognition of the above driving experience, and there is a reason to discuss this point.

However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff joined the non-party company on October 15, 1982, but was absent from work due to the wife's post-delivery. The non-party company demanded the plaintiff to leave the company after retirement from the company on June 27, 1983 and then re-entered on August 21 of the same year. According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the non-party company agreed to terminate the first employment contract on June 27, 1983 and conclude a new employment contract again on August 21 of the same year. On the other hand, the court below rejected the plaintiff's first claim that the plaintiff's employment contract was in violation of the rules of evidence during the above period, and it did not constitute the non-party company's previous employment contract during the non-party company's retirement period, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's employment contract was in violation of the non-party company's employment rules, and thus, the plaintiff's employment contract was in violation of the non-party company's employment agreement.

Furthermore, the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City's guidelines concerning class 2 D in calculating the period of continuous service to the non-party company, and since the plaintiff and the non-party company cannot be deemed to have practically continued to work under the previous employment contract even during the above period of retirement, the plaintiff's continuous service period from August 21, 1983 which entered into a new employment contract with the non-party company to March 12, 190, which is the date of application for the license of this case, shall be June 19, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have served for not less than seven years in the same taxi company, therefore it shall not be deemed to fall under class 2 D in the above guidelines of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Accordingly, the defendant's notification to the plaintiff for lack of continuous service experience under the second-order requirements for the above disposition is justifiable, and there is no violation of law by abusing or deviating from discretionary power in making such a disposition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in interpreting the standards for the recognition of driving career, but it is not found that the error affected the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's claim of this case, and the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)