[1] Legal nature of a license for a motor vehicle transport business and whether an administrative agency's discretion is to establish a license standard (affirmative)

[2] Whether the private taxi transportation business license guidelines that recognize the term of office as a driving experience only for the chief of a labor union among full-time officers, and the chief of a labor union recognized as a driving experience only when he/she normally engaged in driving (negative)

[3] The legal nature of the guidelines for private taxi transportation business license as stipulated by Seoul Metropolitan Government (working rules)

[4] Whether the number of days of annual leave and the number of days of civil defense training in the license for private taxi transportation business should be included in the calculation period of driving experience (affirmative)

[1] The license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing specific rights to a specific person, and unless otherwise provided in the law, it belongs to the administrative agency's discretion, and the establishment of the standard of the method of recognition of driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license belongs to the administrative agency's discretion. Thus, unless it appears that the established standard is objectively unreasonable, it cannot be viewed that the calculation of driving experience is illegal

[2] Among the full-time union members exclusively in charge of the labor union affairs, only the chief of the labor union during his/her term of office shall be recognized as driving experience, and the other labor union chief of the labor union shall not be deemed to be reasonable in terms of the content of the labor union license guidelines in 1993, which stated that only the former chief of the labor union may be recognized as

[3] The Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s Personal Passenger Transport Business License Directive is merely an internal business rule of the administrative agency established based on the exercise of discretionary power, and thus, it does not take effect only if it is externally notified, unlike the case of a legal order that leads to the citizen.

[4] In a case where the calculation of driving experience in the 1993 Personal Transport Business License Guidelines prescribed by Seoul Special Metropolitan City is deemed to be the period during which the company has normally engaged in driving practice under the rules of employment or collective agreements, the number of days of annual leave shall be interpreted to be included in driving experience under the above license guidelines in light of the purpose of recognizing the above license guidelines. The number of days of civil defense training shall not be considered as a leave of absence or disadvantageous treatment on the ground of this reason when the number of days of civil defense training is mobilized or trained as a civil defense unit.

[1] Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 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, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Article 14 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Articles 47 and 48 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 23 of the Framework Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3984 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong1990, 272), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8461 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 395Ha, 3935), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12897 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2695), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6172 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3344) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 195 (Gong195Ha, 354), Supreme Court Decision 196Nu16649 delivered on April 16, 195 (Gong1969 decided Oct. 16, 196)

Park Jong-chul et al. (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu27320 delivered on July 25, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal on the Plaintiff’s right to vote.

The license for the automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing a specific right to a specific person, and it belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, and the establishment of the criteria for the method of recognizing the driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license also belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, unless it seems that the established criteria are objectively unreasonable, it cannot be viewed that the calculation of the driving experience is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3984 delivered on December 8, 1989). The defendant's personal taxi transport business license guideline for 1993 as determined by the defendant is the established opinion of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3984 delivered on December 8, 198). The defendant's personal taxi transport business license guideline for the year 193 includes the period during which the labor union's work is ordinarily engaged in driving practice in accordance with the company's rules of employment or collective agreements, and it does not seem reasonable.

Therefore, even if the above plaintiff was acting as the vice president of a trade union, as long as there is a separate president of a trade union, it shall not be deemed that there is any illegality in the disposition of this case where the period of time is not recognized as driving experience in accordance with the above licensing guidelines that recognize only the vice president

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, the violation of the rules of evidence, or the incomplete hearing on the interpretation of the above licensing guidelines.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff assistant officer.

First of all, the above licensing guidelines of the defendant are merely the administrative agency's internal business rules established on the basis of the exercise of discretionary power, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above licensing guidelines have effect only if they are externally notified unlike the case of a legal order that externally binds the people. Therefore, the above licensing guidelines are not publicly announced, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss

In addition, if the above licensing guidelines are absent from office, leave of absence, or non-driving period of less than 50/100 based on the number of days of that month, it shall be calculated as one month, but if 50/100 or more, only the number of working days shall be recognized as driving experience, and if the contents thereof are not reasonable, it shall not be deemed reasonable. Thus, in judging whether the working days are more than 50/100, there is no reason to argue that the current driver's work period should be based on the 26th day of each month in accordance with the working type and working conditions of the current driver, and further, in examining related evidence by the record, the fact-finding of the court below as to the working days is acceptable. Accordingly, there is no error of law against the rules of evidence

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the above licensing guidelines are recognized as driving experience only for the chief of a trade union among the full-time members of the trade union. Thus, in calculating the driving experience of the above plaintiff, the measures taken by the above plaintiff excluding the number of days of full-time working as the chief of the trade union are justifiable, and the number of sick days is also included in the "period of normal working as the chief of the trade union" under the above licensing guidelines. Thus, the driving experience cannot be calculated

However, it is reasonable to interpret that the number of days of annual leave shall be included in the driving experience stipulated in the above licensing guidelines in light of the purpose of recognition as a member's opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu649 delivered on June 11, 1996). The number of days of civil defense training shall not be regarded as a period of absence or disadvantageous treatment for this reason when the number of days of civil defense training is mobilized or trained as a member of the civil defense unit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below excluding the number of annual leave days and the number of days of civil defense training in calculating the above plaintiff's driving experience is erroneous. However, even if the above days were included in the records, it is clear that the accident-free driving experience falls short of five years, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is therefore without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)