[2] The case holding that the Dong Sea City's disposition of excluding the license for private taxi transport business is lawful in accordance with the "Regulations on the Management of License for Private taxi Transport Business in the Dong Sea" that the person who is lower than the number of persons subject to the license should be given preferential treatment to the taxi driver than the number of persons subject to the license in determining the priority in issuing the license for private taxi transport business and in the event that there are competition in the same order of priority

[2] The case holding that Article 4 (2) of the above provision on the order of priority in the issuance of new taxi licenses is lawful in light of the purport of the above provision, in case where the Dong Sea is a private taxi transport business subject to a license and the decision that the person to be engaged in the business is more useful than that of the private taxi transport business when determining the person to be engaged in the business and the person to be engaged in the business is considered to be more and more useful than that of the private taxi transport business according to the "Regulations on Handling Affairs of License for Private taxi Transport Business in the East Sea" which provides that the person to be engaged in the business should be given preferential treatment to the private taxi driver than that of the bus or other business vehicle in the same order of priority in the issuance of the private taxi license, and thus, Article 4 (2) of the above provision on the order of priority in the issuance of new taxi licenses is reasonable and reasonable as the means

Unless otherwise specifically provided in statutes, a private taxi transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative act granting a specific person a right or interest, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency to determine necessary standards for a license within the scope of the above Act and its Enforcement Rule. Thus, unless there are special circumstances that objectively and reasonably deemed that the criteria established are unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency's intent should be respected as far as possible. In issuing a license for private taxi transport business, when an administrative agency takes into account the correlation with the pertinent license, such as occupational similarity and usefulness of taxi driving experience, and takes into account the current status of transportation business and issuance of licenses within the relevant administrative agency and policy consideration including long-term prospects and measures, if a disposition giving a specific portion of favorable treatment to a taxi driver is taken, such discriminatory treatment as the grounds for such discriminatory treatment is not recognized, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of law, such as a deviation or abuse of discretion by an administrative agency only because it causes against a person other than a taxi. < Amended by Act No. 6314, Feb. 14, 2000>

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, Defendant 2: (a) was established on January 17, 200; (b) Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; and (c) Article 156 of the same Act (which was amended on March 11, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the “instant provision”); (c) Article 206-37 of the same Act provides that the number of private taxi drivers will be issued in the order of priority in the issuance of licenses for 10 years, based on the 5-year order of priority in the provision of the 2-year passenger taxi accident at issue of the above 4-year passenger taxi service; and (d) Article 2 of the same Act provides that the 2-year passenger taxi driver’s work experience at issue of the above 4-year passenger taxi service company should be issued in order of priority in the issuance of licenses; and (d) the 3-year passenger taxi driver’s work experience at issue of the above 4-year passenger service company’s new service accident at issue order.

In full view of the purport of the relevant statutes, regulations, etc. as seen above and the circumstances within the jurisdiction of the defendant, considering the first priority in determining the order of priority in issuing individual taxi drivers' licenses, the purport of the provision of this case, which provides that if there is competition between the plaintiff and the driver's experience in the same order of priority in determining the priority in issuing individual taxi drivers' licenses, a person who is subject to the license is an individual taxi transport business and the driver's experience in the same order of priority in determining the person to be engaged in the business, is more useful than that of the bus or other business. In addition, in determining the person to be engaged in the business, in order to resolve the shortage of the taxi driver's licenses and promote the development of balanced passenger transport services in the region of the defendant's city, it seems that there is a need to consider the necessity to support the business activities of the taxi company with stable business basis within the jurisdiction and to protect the trust interests of the taxi drivers in the region where the provision of this case is trusted and long-term, it is more reasonable and reasonable to exclude the disadvantage of the plaintiff's driver's service experience in accordance with the above provision of administrative purpose.

Nevertheless, from a different standpoint, Article 4(2) of the instant provision is presumed to be in violation of the estimated scope of license standards of the competent authority under Article 17(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, and thus, the validity and rationality of the instant provision is lacking. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the principle of equality, the legal principles on the interpretation and application of the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)