Unless otherwise expressly provided for in statutes, a private taxi transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person a right or interest, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency to determine necessary standards for the license within the scope of the above Act and its Enforcement Rule. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the established standards are objectively deemed unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible. In granting a license for a private taxi transport business, taking into account the fact that the administrative agency can use the private taxi driving service rather than that of other types of vehicles such as buses, etc., more objectively and reasonably favorable treatment of the private taxi driving service is unreasonable or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du3719, Oct. 10, 200; 2004Du9463, Nov. 12, 2004).

According to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, Article 5 of the above Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act, Article 15 of the above Act, and Article 156 of the above Act (amended by Directive No. 156 of March 11, 1996, which was revised on September 12, 2005; hereinafter the "Rules of this case") were newly issued in order of priority in the issuance of licenses to 10 automobiles for 10 years or longer since the above 20-year passenger taxi driving company's work experience in the above 10-year passenger taxi driving company's 20-year passenger taxi driving company's work experience in the above 10-year passenger taxi driving company's 20-year passenger taxi driving company's 20-year passenger driver's work experience in the above 20-year passenger driving company's 20-year passenger driving company's 20-year passenger driver's 3 years or more.

As such, Article 4 (2) of the Regulations of this case provides that the order of priority shall be given to those who have worked in the taxi driving service with preferential treatment to those who have worked in the other business, and further competition within the same order of priority shall be given to those who have worked in the other business. The order of priority as above at the defendant market is based on the decision of the administrative agency that the work experience in the taxi driving service is useful. In order to promote the balanced development of smooth passenger transportation and passenger transportation services in the defendant city, it is necessary to provide support to those taxi companies with stable business basis in the defendant city in the defendant city in order to maintain their business activities, and it is necessary to protect the trust interests of the drivers of the taxi companies in the defendant city with trust and long-term work experience in the above provision, and Article 4 (2) of the Regulations of this case is not objective and rational or unreasonable as a means or criteria for achieving the above administrative purposes of the defendant city. Accordingly, it is legitimate that the defendant excludeds the above disposition against the plaintiff who is the subordinate person to be issued in accordance with the above notice of license plan.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case based on the provision of this case was unlawful since it exceeded the expected scope of licensing standards of the competent authority under Article 17 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, since Article 4 (2) of the provision of this case discriminates against the persons with career of driving buses and commercial automobiles without any reasonable ground, and it exceeded the expected scope of licensing standards of the competent authority under Article 17 (7) of the same Act. The disposition of this case based on the provision of this case was made in violation of the principle of equality, the interpretation and application of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)