[개인택시운송사업면허제외처분취소][공1998.5.15.(58),1378]
[1] The legal nature of licenses for private taxi transportation business under the Automobile Transport Business Act and whether the administrative agency's discretion is to establish licensing standards (affirmative)
[2] Whether it is reasonable to give preferential treatment to a license for a private taxi transport business compared to that of other types of vehicles such as buses (affirmative)
[1] The license of the private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is the discretionary act of the administrative agency that grants rights or interests to a specific person and the standard required for the license within the scope of the above Act and its Enforcement Rule also belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency.
[2] In the case of the above [1], the intention of the administrative agency shall be respected as much as possible, unless there are other special circumstances that make it objectively unreasonable and unreasonable to determine the criteria established, and considering the fact that the administrative agency can use the personal taxi driving service more useful than that of the individual taxi driving service in other types of vehicles such as buses, etc. in granting the license for the private taxi transport business, it cannot be deemed objectively unreasonable or unreasonable to treat the taxi more favorably.
[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 (1) and (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 (1) and (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6172 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3344), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12941 delivered on January 21, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 658), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1072 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 364)
Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Han-gu, Attorneys Park Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Ansan-si (Law Firm Ansan-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu4916 delivered on November 19, 1997
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The license of private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is the discretionary act of an administrative agency that grants a specific person the right or interest, and the standard necessary for granting a license within the scope of the above Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof also belong to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the standard established is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the intention of the administrative agency should be respected as far as possible. In granting a license of private taxi transport business, considering the fact that the administrative agency can be more useful for private taxi transport business than that of other types of vehicles such as buses, it cannot be objectively reasonable or unreasonable to give a certain preferential treatment to private taxi transport business.
Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful is correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Therefore, the
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)