[개인택시운송사업면허신청접수거부처분취소][공1995.10.15.(1002),3423]
(a) Whether the establishment or alteration of standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for a private taxi transportation business license and its license is the discretionary authority of an administrative agency;
(b) The case holding that the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is not illegal to revise the standards for private taxi transportation business license;
A. The private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest and belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, except as otherwise provided in the law, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license and the modification of the established standards are the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, as long as the establishment or modification of the standards is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the calculation of driving experience cannot be deemed unlawful.
(b) The case holding that when the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City gives notice of recruitment of a person eligible for a private taxi license to a private taxi license, if the head of the same company changed the "seven years" to the "seven years" of the same company, which was defined as the criteria for the second-class (e) of the second-class (e), into the "seven years" in October of the same year, it cannot be deemed as unlawful because it added the requirements for a license not stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes
Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee
Plaintiff
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu12922 delivered on February 28, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In accordance with the Automobile Transport Business Act, a private taxi transport business license is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, and unless otherwise provided in the Act and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license and the modification of the established standards are also the discretion of the administrative agency, so long as the establishment or modification of the standards is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the calculation of driving experience cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu16253, Apr. 14, 1995; 91Nu13526, Apr. 28, 1992).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded that the defendant's offering of personal taxi licenses of this case was necessary to extend the service period of 7 years and 1993-261 in October 20, 1993, and that the defendant strengthened the "7 years" of the same company's service period which was set as the second (e) grade criteria for the past several years to "7 years" as "7 years and 10 days" as stated in its decision, it is necessary to strengthen the basic qualification and priority standards for licenses to reduce e.g., the 1993 proper figure of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City in 193 to 300. To this end, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles or the judgment of the court below that the defendant's offering of individual taxi licenses of this case was invalid or invalid since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "the grounds of appeal concerning the change or abuse of discretionary authority" of 193 as it did not fall under the ground of appeal No. 197 years and 20.
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.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)