beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant's disposition to revoke his private taxi transportation business license to the plaintiff on March 20, 2013.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from February 2 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and this part of the relevant statutes are the same as the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from 19:2 to 11:3 pages of the judgment of the first instance). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion and this part of the relevant statutes are cited by the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. First of all, we examine whether the instant disposition was abused or abused the discretionary power.
1) Where revoking a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license for private taxi transportation business, it is an infringement on the vested rights already granted to the licensee. Thus, even if a statutory ground for revocation exists, the exercise of the right to revoke shall be determined by comparing and comparing the disadvantages to be borne by the other party only when it is necessary for public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights. If the disposition causes enormous disadvantages to be borne by the other party than necessary public interest, it shall be deemed unlawful beyond the bounds of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu218, Aug. 22, 1997; 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004). In full view of the evidence and the overall purport of arguments cited earlier and the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of arguments, the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is justified.