(a) The meaning of the accident-free driving experience under Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

B. Whether new facts after an administrative disposition can be determined as to whether such disposition is appropriate (negative)

(c) Legal nature of a license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act and discretionary power of administrative agencies;

(a) The term "accidentless driving experience" in Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act refers to driving experience that there is no accident due to any cause attributable to the driver, regardless of whether the driver has been punished or not, and the accident is attributable to the driver by a non-prosecution disposition pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but it shall not be included unless the driver has been punished;

B. The legality of an administrative disposition is determined at the time of the disposition unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the new facts that have not been submitted at the time of the disposition cannot be considered as material to determine the legitimacy of the disposition.

(c) A license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing a specific person’s right, and unless otherwise prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the administrative agency’s discretion, and the method of recognizing the experience of accidentless driving is also subject to the discretionary authority.

(a) Article 6 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu343 delivered on October 11, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3606 delivered on November 28, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on the evidence of the city, the court below held that the plaintiff applied for the above license on April 18 of the same year to the defendant on April 198 of the same year pursuant to Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 166), since the plaintiff paid a traffic accident on September 11, 1983, the plaintiff did not grant the license of this case to the plaintiff as of September 28, 1987 (hereinafter the non-permission disposition of the license of this case) pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Personnel Accidents caused by the plaintiff driving a taxi on a temporary basis, but the above accident cannot be viewed as a cause attributable to the plaintiff, and the defendant's decision that recognized the plaintiff's non-permission disposition of this case as illegal since the plaintiff's non-permission disposition of the license of this case was made based on the fact that the plaintiff's non-permission disposition of this case was found to be unlawful.

However, the term "accidentless driving experience" in Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act refers to driving experience that there was no accident due to the reason attributable to the driver regardless of the existence of punishment, and the accident is attributable to the driver by a non-prosecution disposition pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but it can not be included in the case where no punishment is imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu343 delivered on October 11, 1983). In addition, unless there are special circumstances, the legality of the administrative disposition should be determined at the time of the administrative disposition. Thus, the new fact that was not submitted at the time of the above license cannot be considered as the material to determine the legitimacy of the disposition of non-permission of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu692 delivered on May 29, 1984).

However, in light of the records, at the time of the defendant's non-permission disposition of this case, there was only evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition that is not subject to prosecution after having paid a traffic accident falling under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Article 268 of the Criminal Act) by smelling traffic accident at the time of the defendant's non-permission disposition of this case. The above traffic accident caused by the plaintiff was not attributable to the plaintiff, and there is no other sufficient evidence to conclude that the above traffic accident caused by the plaintiff was not attributable to the plaintiff. Thus, the driver's license of automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency unless otherwise stipulated in the law, and the method of recognizing the non-driving experience of the accident is also subject to the discretionary authority (refer to the above 83Nu692 of the above judgment). Thus, the defendant's employment of this case did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the license's non-prosecution disposition of this case.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)