1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed in respect of the part on which the revocation of the qualification for taxi driving is sought;

2. The plaintiff.

1. Where a judgment on whether the Plaintiff’s appeal on the part seeking revocation of the qualification for taxi driving is lawful is omitted, such part of the lawsuit is still pending in that instance, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate appeal. Therefore, an appeal on that part is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15700 Decided November 16, 2007, etc.). According to the records, although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant that “the Defendant’s revocation of his/her personal taxi transport business license and revocation of his/her qualification for taxi driving, respectively, against the Plaintiff on November 10, 2014, the first instance court did not render any judgment on the part on which the Defendant sought revocation of his/her qualification for taxi driving.”

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is still pending in the court of first instance, and thus, it is unlawful to appeal this part, as it is not a legitimate appeal.

2. The reasoning of this court regarding this part of the judgment seeking revocation of the revocation of the license for private taxi transportation business is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's argument, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary part of determination] The plaintiff did not have a drinking driving prior to the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff constitutes "where the violator first committed the relevant violation, and where it is recognized that the exemplary passenger transport service has been committed for not less than five years," under Article 43 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (related to Article 43 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act), and thus, the plaintiff did not suspend the business for not less than 90 days against the plaintiff."