(b) Legal nature of licenses for private taxi transportation business and discretionary authority of administrative agencies concerning the establishment of licensing standards;

(c) Where an administrative agency determines the time limit for submitting data to be considered at the time of an administrative disposition within the discretionary scope, whether the administrative agency may apply the time limit for an administrative disposition unfavorable to him/her, and then submit new data in the administrative litigation to seek revocation of the administrative disposition;

B. A license for a private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest to a specific person and belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise provided in the law, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognition of driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license is the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, barring any special circumstance that deems the established standards objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the calculation of driving experience shall not be deemed unlawful.

(c) In calculating the driving experience in the "Guidelines for Private Taxi Transport Business License" in 193, even though the person applied for a private taxi transport business license, he/she may not assert that the disposition of excluding a private taxi transport business is unlawful by submitting new data on the driving experience for which a driver who has claimed his/her driving experience or failed to submit his/her certificate of driving experience at the time of filing an application for a license in an administrative litigation.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below alleged that the period should be included in the driving experience since the plaintiff operated a taxi from June 17, 1983 to December 20, 198, in addition to the driving experience submitted by the plaintiff at the time of applying for the license of this case. Since the legality of the administrative disposition should be determined at the time of the administrative disposition, the new facts that did not submit at the time of applying for the license of this case cannot be viewed as the materials showing the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, and the defendant's personal taxi transport business license guidelines of 1993 provide that the additional supplement of the career certificate shall be prohibited in calculating the driving experience and only the documents submitted at the time of applying for the license shall be decided whether to issue the personal taxi transport business license based on the driving experience. Thus, the plaintiff's driving experience from June 17, 1983 to December 20 of the same year shall not be included in the plaintiff's driving experience of the non-party taxi company.

In an appeal litigation, the legality of an administrative disposition should be determined at the time of the administrative disposition unless there are special circumstances. However, the meaning of the administrative disposition at the time of the administrative disposition not at the time of the judgment but at the time of the disposition should be determined on the basis of the law and fact-finding conditions at the time of the administrative disposition, and the meaning of the disposition at the time of the disposition should not be determined on the basis of the materials which existed at the time of the disposition or materials which were submitted to the administrative agency at the time of the disposition, and as such, it cannot be determined on the basis of the materials which had been submitted at the time of the disposition, and the proof of the fact-finding at the time of the disposition can be made at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing. In addition, the court not only the materials known to the administrative agency at the time of the conclusion of the arguments at the fact-finding court, but also all the materials which were submitted at the time of the disposition

However, a license for private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest to a specific person and belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, except as otherwise provided in the law. Since the establishment of the criteria for the method of recognition of driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license is also the discretion of an administrative agency, it shall not be deemed unlawful to calculate driving experience based on the established criteria, unless there are any special circumstances that deem it objectively unreasonable or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu692, May 29, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10541, Jul. 10, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4243, Oct. 12, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2661, Jan. 20, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2000Nu9259799, Oct. 29, 1995).

2. Other grounds of appeal are justified in light of the purport that the calculation of the plaintiff's whole driving experience is unfair, and the reasons of the judgment below are examined in light of the records, since the court below recognized that the plaintiff was less than five years in the Republic of Korea for six years counting from the date of application for the license of this case, the disposition that the defendant excluded the plaintiff from the subject of the license of this case pursuant to the "Personal Taxi Transportation Business License Guidelines 1993" is legitimate, and even if there were errors as pointed out in the grounds of appeal in calculating the entire driving experience due to erroneous inclusion of the above period in the calculation of the entire driving experience, the above disposition is not unlawful as long as the driving experience for six years is less than five years from the date of application for the license of this case. The grounds

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)