[1] The legal nature of the act of establishing standards for recognizing driving experience related to the private taxi transportation business license and the discretion of the administrative agency

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle on the ground that, in case where the Cheongju City Mayor calculated the order of priority based only on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the driver's work experience at the Cheongju City bus company's Cheongju City's Cheongju City's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju's Cheongju

[1] Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 19 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du15783 decided Mar. 15, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 540)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongju Market

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2010Nu451 decided April 13, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A private taxi transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is a so-called beneficial administrative act that grants a specific person rights or benefits, and barring any special provision in the law, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency that establishes or amends the standards for the method of recognition of driving experience within the order determined for the license. Thus, insofar as the establishment or modification of the standards is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du15783, Mar. 15, 2007).

2. The court below acknowledged the facts based on its adopted evidence that the regulations on the license for the passenger taxi transport business (amended by Ordinance No. 615, Jul. 24, 2009; hereinafter “instant regulations on business”) granted the order of priority in issuing licenses to the persons who have served for a certain period in the bus company located in the Cheongju-si. The defendant, who belongs to the central high-speed bus company located in the Cheongju-si (hereinafter “central high-speed”) and worked in the Cheongju-si, on the ground that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have served as a continuous bus company located in the Cheongju-si, which is located in the Cheongju-si, to exclude the plaintiff from the license issuance of the Cheongju-si, on the basis of the remaining experience except that of the Cheongju-si, which is a continuous bus company located in the Cheongju-si. The court below held that the "Cheongju-si bus company located in the Cheongju-si's main office" in the instant regulations means an enterprise located in the Cheong-si, and its main office without any other reasons.

3. However, the lower court’s interpretation of the bus company located in the Si/Gu office as the “city company located in the Si/Gu office” is acceptable, but it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds that the Defendant unfairly discriminateds against the Plaintiff without reasonable grounds and goes against the principle of equality for the following reasons.

Article 19(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that the competent authorities may separately grant a license by determining the requirements for granting a license or the priority order in consideration of the regional circumstances, and according to the Defendant’s assertion that can be revealed in the record, the Defendant’s priority requirement is limited to only a person who has served for a certain period in the bus company with the headquarters in the city of Cheongju, i.e., the bus company with the headquarters in the city of Cheongju,” which reflects the regional circumstances of Cheongju, leading the long-term continuous service of the drivers who have served in the bus company with the headquarters in the city of Cheongju, while living in the Cheongju, located in the Cheongju, located in the Cheongju, under the jurisdiction of Cheongju, and thereby inducing the long-term service of the bus company with the headquarters in the city of Cheongju, thereby protecting the bus company with the headquarters in Cheongju, thereby maintaining the stable passenger transport service at 12% (in particular, according to the public notice of recruitment in the year 2008 and 209).

In light of the overall circumstances, such as the nature of the individual taxi license system that needs to properly adjust the number of licenses each year according to the circumstances, the public interest of taxi transportation business, and the general necessity to provide stable passenger transportation services by encouraging long-term continuous service in an area, etc., the instant priority provision is deemed unlawful, even if the instant provision favorable treatment only to the bus company with its main office in the Cheongju city, resulting in unfavorable consequences to the applicant of the bus company with its main office in another area, such as the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view it objectively unreasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant unfairly discriminates against the Plaintiff only with the formal reason that the location of its main office is not the Cheongju City, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case is unlawful on different premise is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the discretion of the administrative agency on the establishment and interpretation of the standards for private taxi transportation business license, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)