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

A. On May 19, 2008, the Defendant issued a new licence notice for private taxi transport business in 2008, including the type of business, the number of licenses (16 units), the licensing method, qualifications for application, and required documents.

B. Accordingly, on June 18, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a new license for private taxi transport business to the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, from April 24, 1992 to May 2, 1996, the Plaintiff served as a general truck driver at Sammi Transportation Co., Ltd. for four and nine years. From April 11, 1999 to July 9 of the same year, the Plaintiff temporarily employed in Daesung Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “large traffic”) and served as a taxi engineer for twenty nine days from February 29 of the same year. From July 17, 1999 to May 19, 198, the Plaintiff served as a taxi engineer.

D. The monthly number of days during which the plaintiff worked in the lux traffic (hereinafter referred to as "temporary employment period") is 13 days in total. The actual number of driving days during the period during which the plaintiff worked in the lux traffic (hereinafter referred to as "temporary employment period") is 8 days in April 199 to April 30, 199; 13 days in May 199; 10 days in June 30, 199; 10 days in June 199; 7 days in July 1, 199 to July 9, 199; and the actual number of driving days in May 9, 208 when the license of this case was announced.

E. On January 2, 199, nine years (29 days + August 3, 208) during which the Plaintiff worked in Gisung Transport and Tro-si, the Defendant classified the number of individual taxi drivers on April 12 (20-8; hereinafter the same shall apply), 20 days (30 days-10), 6 days (9-3 days) of the same year, and 7 days (14-7 days) of July 1999 for the month during which the Plaintiff worked in Hero-si, and the number of individual taxi drivers on May 10, 2008 (19-99 days) as the 19th day of May 10, 2008 (19-9 days) and the 25th day of August 1, 2005 (19-199 days) of the Plaintiff’s experience of non-party driving on May 1, 2005 (19-16th day of August 1, 2005).

F. The Plaintiff raised an objection on August 11, 2008, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s objection as a result of the deliberation by the Committee on the Improvement of Bus and Taxi Transport in Gyeyang-si, and excluded the Plaintiff from the subject of a license for private taxi transport business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by publicly announcing the confirmation of the license holder for private taxi transport business on August 25, 2008, excluding the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 2-2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 3-1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 6 (3) of the License Rules, the number of days actually driven on the basis of monthly basis shall be calculated as one month, and if the number of days actually driven on the basis of monthly basis is less than 50/100, the number of days actually driven shall be calculated as only the number of days actually driven. In such cases, the number of days less than 50/100 shall be calculated as per month on the basis of the total number of days actually driven." Article 6 (5) of the License Rules provides that the number of days temporarily employed or employed on daily basis shall be recognized as only the number of days actually driven on the basis of the objective basis, such as a day-to-day wage payment ledger, and a certificate of completion of tax payment of the Gap's age. In such cases, the calculation of the number of days actually driven on the basis of 10/1000 or more of the number of days actually driven on the basis of 9/1000 of the total number of days actually driven on the basis of 9/1000 of the number of days temporarily employed on April 19.

B. Defendant’s assertion

In order to calculate the driving career pursuant to Article 6(3) and (5) of the Regulations on License, first of all, the Plaintiff’s temporary employment period is premised on having worked for the last day from the first day of the pertinent month until the last day of the pertinent month. However, the disposition of this case by calculating the driving career based on the actual number of driving days is lawful since the Plaintiff’s temporary employment period among July 1, 1999 and May 2008, which was a major issue during the Plaintiff’s temporary employment period, had worked for the first day of the pertinent month until the last day of the pertinent month. As such, Article 6(3) and (5) of the Regulations on License cannot be applied to the remainder of the period.

C. Relevant statutes

Article 17(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 66, Nov. 6, 2008) provides for the criteria for the license of private taxi transport business. Meanwhile, Article 17(7) of the same Act provides that the competent authority may establish separate criteria for the license including matters such as requirements for the issuance of licenses or priority in addition to the criteria for the license of private taxi transport business under paragraph (1) in consideration of regional circumstances, and accordingly, Article 6 of the license rules enacted by the Defendant is provided as follows.

Article 6 (Calculation, etc. of Operation Experience)

(1) The term "driving career" means a person who has obtained a driver's license and has been directly engaged in the practice of driving automobiles for passenger transport business, trucks used in trucking transport business, construction machinery rental business or non-business automobile, or non-business construction machinery, and is distinct from the continuous service period.

(2) The driving experience shall be the period during which a person has been engaged in normal driving practice under an employment contract, such as employment rules or collective agreements: Provided, That the period of temporary retirement, cancellation of driver's license, suspension of driver's license, etc., and the period of engaged in driving while

1. The temporary retirement period shall be excluded from driving experience;

2. Revocation or suspension period of driver's license due to a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or a traffic accident;

3. The driving experience of the labor union department which performs the affairs of a labor union shall be recognized only as driving experience issued by the representative of the affiliated business under the conditions as determined by the labor-management organization agreement. In this case, the term "inter-company" means the full-time officer of a labor union and the full-time officer of a labor union which is an associated organization.

4. Suspension of operation and lock-out due to labor-management decentralization, etc. shall be excluded from the driving career: Provided, That the continuous service period shall be recognized;

5. Other periods of office which a driver does not actually drive but in other occupational categories, such as company management positions, shall be excluded from driving experience and continuous service experience.

(3) When the number of days of actual driving as of the monthly basis is not less than 50/100 of the total number of days of service, the number of days of actual driving shall be calculated as one month, and when the number of days of actual driving is less than 50/100, the number of days of actual driving shall be calculated as the number of days of actual driving. In this case, the number of days of service less than 50/100

(4) Where the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of a trade union is not elected during the period of dismissal from the court

(5) The career of driving by temporary employment or daily employment shall be recognized as driving career only for the number of working days confirmed by the objective grounds, such as dispatch day, wage payment register, and Gap's tax payment certificate, etc. In this case, the career calculation shall be recognized as one month in case where a person actually drives a vehicle with a total number of working days or more on the basis of the delivery day of every month, and when a person actually drives a vehicle with less than a full number of working days, it shall be deemed as one month in addition to

(7) The calculation of the continuous service period shall be the continuous service period for an enterprise within the same category of business and in the following cases:

1. Where a person has been employed by the same company or another company of the same type of business within 30 days after retirement from the working company: Provided, That the period of non-driving shall not be recognized as driving experience;

On the other hand, the provisions of the Licensing Rules concerning the issuance of licenses are as follows.

Article 3 (Issuance, etc. of Licenses)

(2) New licenses shall be openly recruited by means of public announcement, etc., and those who are not disqualified under Article 7 of the Passenger Transport Service Act from among applicants for licenses shall be given priority in issuing licenses for private taxi transport business in attached Table 1

Article 4 (Application of Priority)

(1) A new license shall be granted in accordance with the order of priority as specified in the attached Table 1 of Article 3 (2), and when there exists competition in the same grade, a person with long-termless driving experience shall take precedence over those with long-term accident, and when there is competition, a person with long-term service experience in a business within the jurisdiction shall take precedence over others, and

[Attachment 1] Priority in Issuing Private Taxi Licenses

○1: A person who has driven a taxi without fault for at least nine years and has served for at least seven years in a taxi company within the jurisdiction as of the date of the public announcement of the application for a license.

○2: A person who has driven a taxi without fault for at least 13 years and has served for at least four years in a taxi company within the jurisdiction as of the date of the public announcement of the application for a license.

03 Priority: A person who has driven a taxi without fault for at least five years and has served in a taxi company within the jurisdiction as of the date of public announcement of the application for a license for at least 13 years;

04 Priority: A person who has driven a taxi without fault for at least seven years and has served in a taxi company within the jurisdiction as of the date of public announcement of the application for a license for at least seven years;

○5 Order: A person who has driven a taxi without fault for at least five years and has served in a taxi company within the jurisdiction as of the date of public announcement of the application for a license for at least five years;

(d) Markets:

Whether the instant disposition is legitimate depends on whether the so-called monthly standard should be met, which means that the taxi company shall work in the taxi company from the first day of the relevant month to the last day of the relevant month, under the premise of calculating the driving experience pursuant to Article 6(3) and (5) of the Licensing Rules.

Therefore, a license for private taxi transport business is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise provided for in statutes. Thus, in interpreting and applying the criteria for priority in issuing licenses determined by the administrative agency, insofar as such criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable in terms of objective standards, and thus it is not recognized that the administrative agency abused discretion, the intention of the administrative agency should be respected as far as possible. ① The practice of driving refers to the period during which the plaintiff actually engaged in driving, and Article 6(3) and (5) of the Licensing Rules provide that if the plaintiff is no longer than a certain number of days based on the actual working days in consideration of the nature of the taxi driver and the rest and welfare of the driver, it is an exceptional provision that allows the plaintiff to recognize the whole period of working from the date of his/her service as working in the pertinent company without considering the purport of the permit's temporary retirement period, cancellation and suspension period, lock-out period due to labor-management regulations, and other actual working days, the period of working in the pertinent company or the worker.

Therefore, in the case of the month in which the plaintiff did not work until the end of the month, the disposition of this case in which the plaintiff recognized only the number of actual working days as driving experience is legitimate.

Meanwhile, even if Article 6(3) and (5) of the Licensing Rule is applied only on the premise that the Plaintiff had worked from the first day of each month to the last day of each month according to the method computed by the Defendant, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff had served in accordance with Article 6(7) of the Licensing Rule in the case of July 1999 when the Plaintiff had worked for more than 50/10 of the total number of days of service in the lux traffic, and it shall be calculated for one month, and the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that there is a defect in which the Defendant did not notify the same career calculation method as the Defendant issued in the notice of a new individual taxi license. However, the calculation of the number of service years and the number of service years is different, and Article 6(7)1 proviso of the Licensing Rule, which is a provision on the continuous service period, does not recognize the period of service, and as long as the Defendant had already enacted and announced the rules on the criteria for the issuance of the license and its contents are not clear enough, the Plaintiff’s new notification of the Plaintiff’s demand for the aforementioned individual taxi.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)