자동차운송사업면허개서처분및교부행위무효확인등
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s assertion
C acquired E Co., Ltd. from D on May 10, 1994, and changed its trade name on September 27, 1994 to B Co., Ltd (the trade name before the change of the Plaintiff; hereinafter “B”), and the representative director to C.
On October 14, 1994, C changed from the defendant on October 14, 1994 and received a revised taxi transportation business license according to its name, and operated B to 90-taxies authorized at the time.
Since then, there was a dispute between C and D concerning the acquisition of a company, and D filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders, while filing an application for provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties by the representative director of C, etc.
During that period, D applied for the issuance of a license for automobile transport business to the Defendant on November 11, 1996 on the ground of the change of the representative of B, and the Defendant issued D a license for automobile transport business even without submitting the documents required by the law (such as a share certificate transfer contract, the register of shareholders, the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders). If there is any change in the contents of the license or registration certificate, upon request of the parties, the competent authority issues an administrative decision to change the contents pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 94 of March 17, 1997; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act”).
However, since a driver's license for automobile transport business is a kind of property right, the act of changing the name of the representative as above constitutes the legal effect of depriving the previous owner of property rights, and the act of changing the name of the representative constitutes the act of disposing public authority, which causes the legal effect of giving property rights
Therefore, the defendant's decision on November 11, 1996 regarding D shall be deemed null and void as an illegal disposition, and the defendant shall be deemed to be the plaintiff.