[개인택시운송사업면허취소처분취소][공1990.3.15(868),544]
The case holding that the revocation of a private taxi transportation business license that is transferred to an unqualified person without permission does not constitute a deviation from discretion.
In light of the purport of Article 28(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act that allows the competent authority to obtain authorization for the transfer and takeover of the automobile transport business, and the purport of Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act that provides specific and detailed licensing requirements on the condition that the business entity should drive one automobile directly, with respect to the private taxi transport business, the act of transferring the transport business to a person who does not have a license for the private taxi transport business without obtaining authorization as prescribed by the above Act and allowing the person to operate the vehicle over a long-term of one year and four months without obtaining such authorization does not think that the cancellation of the private taxi transport business license is a disposition that deviates from the discretionary authority, even in light of the disadvantage that the person who is a license holder who gets his family living in the above transport business
Articles 28(1) and 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu12259 delivered on May 11, 1989
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's disposition of 00,000 won of 60,000 won for non-party 1's own house out of 0,000 won for non-party 1's disposal of the above 60,00 won for non-party 1's own house, which resulted in the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's loss of livelihood without the plaintiff's private taxi transport business's license, including retirement allowance of 8,00,000 won for non-party 1's own house and corporate bonds 5,000 won for non-party 1's non-party 20,000 won for non-party 1's disposal of the above 60,000 won for non-party 1's own house without the plaintiff's approval of the non-party 1's disposal of the above 60,000 won for non-party 1's own house.
2. However, according to the above facts of the judgment below, the plaintiff transferred the passenger taxi transport business to a third party without obtaining authorization under Article 28 (1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and recovered after about one year and four months, and according to the Eul evidence No. 3 without dispute about the establishment and the testimony of Non-Party 2 of the witness of the court below, it is acknowledged that the other party was discovered to drive it during the period of transfer as so transferred and the suspension of operation was made until the date of being ordered to suspend operation. Thus, in light of the purport of Article 28 (1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides for specific and detailed licensing requirements on the condition that the private taxi transport business should directly drive one automobile, the plaintiff transferred the automobile transport business to a person who did not meet the license of the private taxi transport business for a long time of 1 year and 4 months, and the plaintiff's act of operating the vehicle has a considerable influence on the judgment of the court below, and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above discretion.
However, according to the testimony of the above non-party 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff found the above private taxi transport business and was discovered by the substitute driving on July 14, 198 and was subject to the disposition of suspending the operation for 30 days. However, even if the grounds for the disposition are the substitute driving, if the facts are the same as the facts of the grounds for the revocation of the license of this case, it is probable that the disposition of this case is a double disposition, and the court below should also examine this point.
3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)