[1] Whether the transferee's business license can be revoked on the grounds of the revocation of the transferee's business license for the transferor, who had been prior to the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business after obtaining authorization for the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business (affirmative)

[2] Requirements for revocation, withdrawal, or suspension of a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license for private taxi transport business

[3] In a case where the competent authority authorized the transfer and acquisition of a private taxi transport business, and the driver's license was revoked due to the fact that the transferor had previously been driving, the case holding that the public interest needs to establish the order of private taxi transport business by depriving the transferor of the license for private taxi transport business cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantage suffered by the transferee due to the above disposition, and that the above disposition is not an unlawful act of deviating from or abusing the discretion in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations

[1] Article 15 (4) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8511 of Jul. 13, 2007) (see current Article 14 (5)), Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18960 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2010) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu218 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2905) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606 delivered on July 222, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1530) Supreme Court Decision 207Du17427 delivered on May 28, 2009

Plaintiff

The head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu34636 decided September 4, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 15(4) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8511, Jul. 13, 2007; hereinafter “Act”), a transferee of a private taxi transport business succeeds to the status of the transferor as a trucking business operator. Thus, the competent authority may cancel the transferee’s business license on the ground of the reasons for cancellation of the transferee’s business license for the transferor, who had been prior to the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business even after the transfer or acquisition of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18960, Jun. 26, 1998; 960, Jun. 26, 1998; 200, if the cause was already established even if the reason for cancellation of the transferee’s business license for the transport business was not actually established at the time of the transfer or acquisition of domestic affairs, the competent authority may cancel the transferee’s business license on the basis of the reasons for cancellation of the license for the transport business that occurred thereafter, even if it is necessary to cancel or suspend the license for 20.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the non-party entered into a contract on December 18, 2007 on the transfer of the transport business of this case to the plaintiff on December 18, 2007; the defendant approved the transfer and acquisition on January 9, 2008; the non-party did not disclose the fact to the transferee despite the cancellation of the driver's license due to driving before drinking, but did not disclose it in the process of application for authorization on January 21, 2008; the non-party's driver's license was revoked on April 8, 2008; and the defendant revoked the driver's license of this case on the ground that the non-party, the transferor of the transport business of this case, constitutes the revocation of the driver's license of this case on April 8, 2008; the non-party's license was revoked on the ground that the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's personal status.

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)