Plaintiff (Law Firm Postal, Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

April 6, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's revocation of the qualification for taxi driving on September 13, 2017 against the plaintiff and the revocation of the personal taxi transport business license on November 7, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a passenger taxi transport business after obtaining a taxi driver license and a private taxi transport business license.

B. On April 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was indicted of the charge stating that “A person who attempted to commit rape (e.g., 56 years of age) and thereby was inflicted injury on the victim.” On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and six months of imprisonment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant criminal judgment”).

C. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the qualification of taxi drivers (hereinafter “instant disposition revoking the qualification”) pursuant to Articles 87 and 24 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the instant criminal judgment.

D. The Plaintiff filed a claim to revoke the revocation of the instant disposition with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on October 30, 2017.

E. On November 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for passenger taxi transport business (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”) pursuant to Article 85(1)37 of the Passenger Transport Act and Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s qualification as taxi driver was revoked. In addition to the instant revocation disposition, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions, including the instant revocation disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant shall be deemed to have been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment for committing a crime under any subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Crimes Act") and the case where the period prescribed by Presidential Decree has not elapsed within the maximum of 20 years from the date on which the execution of such punishment was terminated or exempted. The defendant revoked the license of this case for this reason by applying Articles 87 (1) 3 and 24 (4) 1 (a) of the Passenger Transport Act (hereinafter referred to as "Article 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the case"). The disposition of this case shall be revoked for the following reasons.

1) Article 1(1) of the instant case is applicable to cases where punishment is imposed under the Specific Crimes Act, and the Plaintiff was punished under the General Criminal Act.

2) The Plaintiff does not fall under either a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, or a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment is terminated or exempted, and the sentence has become invalidated after the lapse of the grace period without the invalidation or revocation of the suspended sentence. Furthermore, Articles 87(1)3 and 24(4)2 (hereinafter “Article 2(2) of the Passenger Transport Act”) separately provide for the case of a suspended sentence. Thus, Article 1(1) of the instant case is not applicable.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The applicable law of the disposition revoking the qualification of this case

The plaintiff was not sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier, and the issue is whether it falls under Article 2 of this case without the application of Article 1 (2). In light of the content of the disposition of cancellation of qualification of this case, the written ruling on administrative appeal, and the written reply of this case, the defendant also appears to have taken the disposition of cancellation of qualification of this case by applying Article 2 (2) of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is selected to dispute the application of Article 2 (2) of this case.

2) Determination on the argument regarding the specific violent crime law

Article 2(3)1(a) of the instant case refers to “Article 2(3)1(a), and Article 2(3)1(a) of the Specific Crimes Act only requires that a person commits a crime under any subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Specific violent Crimes Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the applicable provisions of the criminal judgment of this case must be the specific violent crime law is beyond the limit of the grammatic interpretation and cannot be accepted.

3) Judgment on the argument regarding the progress of probation period

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for revocation of qualification under the application of Article 2(2) of the instant case, regardless of whether the period of

A) Article 87(1)3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that the case falling under Article 24(4) of the same Act shall be an essential cause for revocation of a driver’s license, which does not mean that the cause under Article 24(4) of the same Act is “a case in which the cause is maintained” but shall be interpreted as “a case in which the cause is “a case in which the cause occurs”.

B) The above provision was introduced to establish the order of passenger transport service and promote the safety of passengers by excluding anti-social criminal persons from engaging in driving passenger transport service, such as sex offenses, and it is also consistent with the legislative intent of interpreting the above, since the necessity of protecting the safety of passengers from persons subject to suspended execution due to sex offenses does not vary depending on whether they are under suspended execution or whether the period has expired.

C) Even if the Defendant did not revoke the qualification for driving during the period of the Plaintiff’s probation, it is merely limited to the Plaintiff’s gain of anti-private interest due to the Defendant’s non-exercise of authority, and it cannot be viewed as the period of exercise of authority

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant revocation disposition, which applied Article 2(2) to the Plaintiff, is lawful. The instant revocation disposition, which applied Article 85(1)37 of the Passenger Transport Act on the ground of the instant revocation disposition, is also lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jae-young