[1] Whether the establishment or alteration of the standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority for a private taxi transportation business license and its license is the discretion of an administrative agency (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of "accidentless driving experience" under Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is a provision on licensing criteria for private taxi transport business, and the burden of proof

[3] The legal nature of the local government's private taxi transportation business license provisions based on Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is a provision on licensing criteria of private taxi

[1] A private taxi transportation business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, that is, a beneficial administrative act that belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise stipulated in the laws and regulations, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license and the revision of the established standards are the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, the administrative agency's intent should be respected as far as it is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable.

[2] Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 394 of Feb. 28, 2004) and the "non-accidentless driving experience" under the provisions related to the private taxi transport business license established by a local government refers to driving experience that there was no accident due to a reason attributable to a driver, regardless of the existence of punishment for such accident. In the event of an accident attributable to a driver, it shall not be included in a non-prosecution disposition under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to the purchase of insurance or the agreement with the victim. The "non-accidentless driving experience" constitutes a requirement for issuing a personal taxi transport business license, which is a beneficial administrative act, so the driver who is the other party to the administrative act bears the burden

[3] Under Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 394 of Feb. 28, 2004), a local government's private taxi transport business license-related provision is merely an administrative agency's internal administrative working rules established based on the exercise of discretionary authority, and a person who intends to obtain a private taxi transport business license based on objective and reasonable evidence corresponding to the provision can be recognized in addition to the documents prescribed

[1] Articles 5 and 6 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of February 28, 2004) / [2] Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of February 28, 2004), Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of February 28, 2004)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1072 decided Oct. 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 364), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13061 decided Feb. 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 785), Supreme Court Decision 98Du1321 decided Mar. 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 108Sang, 1001Du5637 decided Nov. 9, 2002; 2001Du8414 decided Nov. 22, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 587 decided Nov. 12, 2004; 209Du94639 decided Nov. 24, 2005)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Nu1017 decided Dec. 23, 2004

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assertion that the instant disposition of exclusion from the license for private taxi transportation business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) is an administrative disposition under illegal laws and regulations

A. A private taxi transportation business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative act that gives a specific person the right or interest, that is, a beneficial administrative act that belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise provided in the laws and regulations, and the establishment of the criteria for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license and the modification of the established criteria are the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, insofar as the establishment or modification of the criteria is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency's intent should be respected as far as possible (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1321, Mar. 13, 1998).

On the other hand, Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 394 of Feb. 28, 2004) and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 394 of Feb. 28, 2004) refer to the driving experience that there was no accident due to a reason attributable to the driver regardless of the existence of punishment for the accident, and the case of non-prosecution disposition under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to the purchase of insurance or the agreement with the victim shall not be included in the accidentless driving experience (refer to Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu838 of Feb. 14, 1992; 96Nu9652 of Oct. 11, 196), since the "accidentless driving experience" constitutes the requirements for issuing a personal taxi transport business license, the other party to the administrative act bears the burden of proof.

In addition, the regulations related to the private taxi transportation business license of local governments based on Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act are merely an administrative agency's internal administrative work rules prepared based on the exercise of discretionary authority, and the driver's experience can be recognized by the person who intends to obtain a private taxi transportation business license based on objective and reasonable evidence equivalent thereto other than the documents prescribed in the regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8414, Jan. 22, 2002).

B. In the same purport, the lower court did not recognize the fact that the Defendant’s disposition of non-prosecution without permission for passenger taxi transport business (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules for Handling Affairs”) is legitimate and reasonable in light of the standards for recognition of experience of accidentless driving under the Regulations for Handling Affairs without Permission for Passenger Transport Business, Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules for Handling Affairs”), but recognizes it as an accident without permission if it is stated that there is no suspicion on the grounds for non-prosecution in the Prosecutor’s Office’s Office’s issuance of public prosecution or the reasons for non-prosecution disposition. However, it is reasonable to view that the license for passenger taxi transport business has the nature of an administrative act as a beneficial administrative act, and that the other party bears the burden of proof as to the facts constituting the requirements for issuance of private taxi transport business license. Therefore, if the Defendant’s disposition of non-prosecution without permission for a traffic accident is found to be unlawful in light of the legal principles as to the fact that it did not constitute an abuse without permission for a driver without permission for a driver without permission, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been found to be unlawful in light of the purport of the judgment.

2. Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the Act on the Effect of Punishment, etc., the court below strictly limited criminal records and response thereto except as provided in the above provision, and Article 8 of the same Act deletes the matters corresponding to computerized materials of investigation records 5 years after the date on which no prosecution right is available. However, the defendant, without any legal basis, after inquiring about the contents of the traffic accident of the plaintiffs to the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office without any legal basis, revealed that the plaintiffs were subject to a disposition of non-prosecution due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Handling of Traffic Accidents, and then excluded the plaintiffs from personal taxi transport business license holders. The disposition of this case was conducted by calculating the plaintiffs' experience of non-accidentless driving based on the results of the plaintiffs' traffic accident investigation conducted by the above illegal methods, and it is illegal disposition that deviates from discretionary authority. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination that the traffic accident occurred in the process of collecting data for calculation of non-exclusive driving experience, and thus, it cannot be found that the defendant's measures of this case are unlawful.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)