[1] The legal nature of the act of establishing the license for private taxi transportation business and its license standard (=legal act of discretion)

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to give preferential treatment to the case where the taxi driver's career is more favorable than that of other types of vehicles such as buses in the private taxi license management guidelines, or the local transportation company has worked for a certain period of time

[1] Articles 5 and 6 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act / [2] Articles 5 and 6 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9463 decided Nov. 12, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8910 decided Apr. 28, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 846)

[Judgment of the court below]

Kim Sea Market

Busan High Court Decision 2006Nu1241 delivered on October 27, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A license for a private taxi transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act is the discretionary act of an administrative agency granting rights or interests to a specific person and the determination of necessary standards for a license within the scope of the above Act and its Enforcement Rule also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the established standards are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the intention of an administrative agency should be respected as far as possible. In granting a license for a private taxi transport business, considering the fact that an administrative agency can be more useful than the experience of driving a private taxi, such as bus, etc. when it grants a license for a private taxi transport business, it cannot be objectively reasonable or unreasonable to give a certain preferential treatment to a private taxi transport business license, and in addition, giving a priority to a private taxi transport business license only when it has worked for a certain period in the relevant local transport business entity for a certain period other than the requirements for residing in the relevant region, in light of all the circumstances such as the nature of the private taxi license system, the public interest of transport business, the necessity to encourage continuous service in the region, and the clarity of the standards (see, etc.).

2. The plaintiff alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant's personal taxi license management guidelines, which provide that only the taxi driver shall unilaterally treat the defendant, compared with the bus driver, etc., is unlawful. Thus, the disposition of this case in this case is invalid. However, the above argument was raised for the first time in the appeal, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, in light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant's personal taxi license management guidelines of this case set by the defendant do not unilaterally treat only a person with the experience of taxi driving, but rather give somewhat favorable treatment to a person with the experience of taxi driving considering all the above circumstances (In addition, according to the above guidelines, the above guidelines provide that a person with the experience of bus driving for business who meets certain qualification shall be granted a preferential license within the limit of 8% of the number of individual taxi licenses), and they are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the disposition of this case as lawful in the above guidelines is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Enforcement Rules thereof, as asserted by the plaintiff.

3. In addition, the ground of appeal by the plaintiff argues that the defendant's personal taxi license management guidelines that provide that the defendant shall give preferential treatment to the persons who have worked for a certain period of time at a licensed transportation company are unlawful, and thus the disposition of this case is null and void. However, in light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant's provision of a person who has worked for a certain period of time at a licensed transportation company in accordance with the defendant's personal taxi license management guidelines (the person who can obtain a preferential license within the limit of 8% of the number of licensed personal taxi licenses) can be deemed legitimate and reasonable in light of all the above circumstances, and therefore, the decision of the court below that recognized the disposition of this case as lawful based on such standards is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of the Passenger Transport Service Act and its Enforcement Rules and the discretionary power, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)