[1] The legal nature of the license for private taxi transportation business, and whether the administrative agency's refusal to grant a license is an illegal disposition that abused its discretionary power where the administrative agency's refusal to grant a license falls under the priority order of granting a license

[2] Whether the number of days of marriage leave under the collective agreement is included in the calculation period of driving experience in the license for private taxi transportation business (affirmative)

[1] A license for private taxi transportation business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants specific rights or interests to a specific person, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, to determine the necessary criteria for the license. Thus, barring any special circumstances, the administrative agency's intent should be respected as possible, unless the established criteria are objective and rational or unreasonable. However, in specifically applying the license criteria already established by an administrative agency to a certain application for a license, if the application is deemed to fall under the priority order for the issuance of a license, and thus the application is excluded from the application, barring special circumstances, the rejection disposition is an illegal disposition that abused discretionary power.

[2] Article 2. 2. 2 of the Rules on Business License for Private Passenger Transport Business (Ⅱ. 2) provides that driving experience shall be calculated as "the period during which a person works normally under the rules of employment or collective agreement, etc. of the company," but it shall be separately treated as "where a person works in the course of performing duties in the course of his/her duties in the company's absence from work, leave of absence, driver's license cancellation, suspension, or the case where a person works in the course of his/her duties in the labor union". As long as the collective agreement of the taxi company to which the private taxi transportation business entity belongs provides marriage leave in the form of one paid leave, even though the paid leave is not a legal leave such as annual and monthly leave, it shall be deemed that he/she works in the same manner as the paid leave, in light of its nature, even if the paid leave is not a legal leave, and in this light,

[1] Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 2, 4, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1357 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2131), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12941 delivered on January 21, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 658) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8461 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3935), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12897 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2695), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6172 delivered on October 11, 196 (Gong196Ha, 334) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2909 delivered on June 26, 196 (Gong1996Ha, 3344) / [196Nu16969096 decided May 169696.

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu2001 delivered on June 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's application for the license of the passenger taxi transport business on December 1, 1995 by macro-regular evidence included a large number of months during which the period of absence, leave of absence, or non-driving on May 13, 1996 alleged by the plaintiff is at least 50/100 based on the number of days of the pertinent month, and if only the number of actual working days is calculated, the driving experience falls short of 8 years of November 14 of 1995 and it does not fall short of 3 out of the 1995 Guidelines for the Management of Personal taxi Transport Business License (hereinafter "Guidelines for Management"), and that the plaintiff's application for the license of this case is illegal in light of the above 12 days of working experience of the plaintiff on May 23, 199, but the defendant also calculated the 12 days of working experience of the above month, which is an employee's minimum period of working days from May 16, 1991.

Unless there are special provisions in the laws, a license for private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants specific rights or interests to a specific person, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, barring special circumstances where the established standards are objective and rational or unreasonable, the intention of the administrative agency should be respected. However, in applying the license standards already established by the administrative agency to a certain application for a license, if the application is clearly stated in the order of priority in issuing the license, the rejection disposition is an illegal disposition that abused the discretionary power, barring special circumstances. Meanwhile, the driving experience is determined as "the period of normal driving practice by the rules of employment or collective agreement of the company", and it is reasonable to interpret that the working experience should be treated separately for the pertinent period of absence, driver's license cancellation, suspension, and labor union leave as long as there is no other special circumstance that the above application constitutes one of the paid leave under the collective agreement of the taxi company to which the plaintiff belongs, as long as it is not a legal leave or one of other reasons.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)