The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant issued a notice of recruitment of 53 private taxi units in 1984 on the basis of the order of priority order of 1514-157, which was issued by the plaintiff's 10th 5th 5th 1984, and the defendant issued a 1st 2th 3th 1st 1st 2th 2th 1984 to 11th 3th 2th 2th 1984 to 196th 2th 2th 2th 1984 to 3th 2th 2th 2th 1984 to 3th 196th 1st 2th 2th 1984 to 3th 1st 2th 2th 1984 to 3th 12th 12th 2th 1984 to 3th 12th 194.

However, if the defendant issued a private taxi business license to the plaintiff because he believed the false contents of the plaintiff's submission and misleads the plaintiff 12 and issued a private taxi business license to the plaintiff as 53 and less than 123 and the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain a private taxi business license from the defendant because he was merely 53 and less than 10 years of accidentless driving experience, the defendant's disposition is a defective administrative disposition that eventually issued a license to a person who failed to meet the requirements for obtaining a license. Thus, the defendant, the disposition agency, can cancel the license on the ground of the defect, and even if he stated the records of the case as stated in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act as the grounds for revoking the license, it is apparent that the defendant's revocation of the license itself, as seen above, is unlawful, and the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the license cannot be viewed as unlawful, and the judgment below's cancellation of the license is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the license, and it is therefore justified in the judgment below.

In addition, when cancelling a beneficial administrative act such as a license for private taxi transport business, it is the theory that the decision should be made by comparing and comparing the needs of public interest to be cancelled and the disadvantage that the party will sustain due to the cancellation. However, since the person who obtained a license by fraudulent means by submitting a false certificate of accident like this case was aware that the profit was illegally acquired, the possibility of cancellation would have been predicted, and even if the administrative agency did not take into account the above administrative act, it would not be able to invoke the trust interest of the above administrative act, and even if the administrative agency did not take into account it, it would be in accord with the principle of good faith and the principle of fairness. Therefore, even if the defendant's cancellation disposition of license is actually disadvantageous to the plaintiff due to the defendant's cancellation disposition, the plaintiff cannot be seen as an illegal disposition deviating from the abuse of discretion or the scope of discretion, and therefore, it should be interpreted that the "on the date of driving" of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act should be interpreted as the date of license issuance.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)