02. The legal nature of the private taxi transport business license and the interpretation of the licensing standards in 03. Whether the guideline on private taxi licenses in 1992 is invalid against the provisions of Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

A. In light of the purport of Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 1013, Oct. 30, 1993) and Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the guideline on private taxi licenses in 1992 requires the personal taxi transport business license for a certain period of time or longer, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the period for which an applicant for private taxi transport business is not actually engaged in driving shall not be regarded as the period for which the applicant for private taxi transport business is not actually engaged

B. A private taxi transportation business license under the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 4533, Dec. 8, 1992) is an administrative act that grants rights or interests to a specific person, and barring any special provision in the law, it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency to determine the necessary criteria for the license. Thus, in interpreting and applying the criteria for priority order, etc. for issuing licenses determined by the administrative agency, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected to the extent possible, insofar as it is deemed that the criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable in terms of the objective criteria, and thus, it is illegal

C. According to Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, in a case where there is no person meeting the requirements under Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and 1013, Oct. 30, 1993), the requirements under paragraph (1) shall be mitigated, and the criteria for licenses under paragraph (1) shall be separately established in consideration of regional circumstances within the scope prescribed under the same Article, and even if the requirements are mitigated, the personal taxi transport business license shall not be granted preferentially to a person meeting the criteria under paragraph (1). Thus, the guideline for personal taxi licenses in 192 more relaxed than those meeting the basic requirements under each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall not be invalid because the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and 1013, Oct. 30, 1993), Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation).

Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1728 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1597), 91Nu7354 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1743), 93Nu12183 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 207) B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10541 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2417), 92Nu19033 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 193Ha, 193).

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu1362 delivered on December 8, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant rejected the application for the license of the passenger taxi transport business of the plaintiff on October 16, 1992 on the ground that the plaintiff's application for the license of the passenger taxi transport business of this case is not a "person who drives a taxi without fault for 8 years or more" on the ground that it does not fall under the "person who drives a taxi without fault for 8 years or more" in the first priority of the license issuance under the defendant's 1992 192 192 3 years since the period from July 16, 1988 that the plaintiff did not actually drive due to labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management-management labor-management labor-management-management labor-management labor-management-management labor-management-management labor-management-management-management-management-related labor-management-related labor-management-management-management-management-management-related labor-management-related labor-management-management-management-related labor-management-management-management-level.

However, in light of the purport of Article 15(1) and (7) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 1013, Oct. 30, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), the Defendant’s instant licensing guidelines under Article 15(1) and (7) requires an accident-free driving experience more than a certain period of time, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the period for which the applicant for a private taxi transport business is not actually engaged in driving shall not be considered as the driving experience of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1728, Sept. 26, 1989; 91Nu7354, Apr. 28, 1992; 93Nu12183, Nov. 23, 1993).

The decision of the court below that the plaintiff satisfies the career requirements for taxiless driving for not less than eight years is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the experience of non-accidentless driving under the licensing guidelines of this case. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. Under Article 15(7) of the Rules, the court below held that the order of priority is set among those who meet the basic requirements within the scope of the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules, and the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules can be mitigated only when the person meeting the basic requirements falls short of or is anticipated to fall short of the expected number of licenses. The order of priority in the issuance of licenses should be given priority to those who meet the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules when the person who satisfies the basic requirements is expanded by relaxing the basic requirements. The defendant's disposition of priority in the issuance of licenses should be given priority to those who meet the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules at the time of recruitment of those who meet the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules at the time of recruitment of those who obtained licenses in 192, but it is not recognized that those who meet the basic requirements under Article 15(1) of the Rules do not fall short of or are anticipated to fall short of the scheduled number of licenses.

However, a private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise provided in the law. Thus, the interpretation and application of the criteria for the priority in issuing licenses, etc., determined by the administrative agency, should be respected as far as possible, unless it is recognized that the criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, and thus it is illegal that the administrative agency abused discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10541, Jul. 10, 1992; 92Nu19033, May 27, 1993; 93Nu4243, Oct. 12, 1993).

According to Article 15(7) of the "Rules", in a case where there is no person meeting the requirements of paragraph (1), the requirements of paragraph (1) shall be mitigated, and the necessary standards for licenses under paragraph (1) shall be separately established in consideration of regional circumstances within the scope prescribed in the same Article, and even in a case where the requirements are mitigated, a private taxi transport business license shall not be granted preferentially to a person meeting the requirements of Article 15(1) of the Rules. Thus, the defendant's licensing guidelines of this case shall not be deemed invalid because they violate Article 15(1) and (7) of the "Rules."

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 15(1) and (7) of the Rules, etc., which affected the cancellation of the disposition rejecting the license of this case on the premise that the Defendant’s licensing guidelines in this case were invalid. Therefore, the argument is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)