The validity of the disposition of refusal to register a vehicle in accordance with the directives other than those provided for in Article 8 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act (amended by December 31, 1982), which stipulates the grounds for refusal to register a vehicle (negative)

In the Directive on Comprehensive Improvement of Taxis (No. 1514-4541, Apr. 26, 1982), a private taxi is increased by a license extension plan and a company taxi is increased by only an excellent designated entity, and thus, the rejection of registration is illegal because it does not entail the plaintiff's new application for registration of a vehicle, which is not accompanied by the ground for new registration of a vehicle, is made on the ground that it does not fall under any of the provisions of Article 8 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act (amended by December 31, 1982), Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides for new registration of a vehicle.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu305 delivered on March 29, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's duly established decision, the plaintiff, as the representative of ○○ Transport Corporation, owned 29 taxis, which is the 29 si, which is the 29 si, and provided passenger transport services, and returned to the plaintiff among the 29 si 29 si, the 9 si located in the plaintiff among the above 29 si 29 si, without cancelling the registration of the plaintiff's name as to the same 29 si si, while continuing to operate the same 1,236 si si in Busan in 1982, it became final that the 1,236 si si si was the 9 si si si si, which is the 9 si si si si si, and applied for new registration with the defendant to supplement the 9 si si si si si si si si which is the 9 si si si si si 1514 si si si si's application for registration.

Therefore, in determining the illegality of the disposition of refusal of registration, it is sufficient to examine and determine only the legitimacy of the disposition of refusal of registration on the ground that only the extension of private taxi licenses and the increase of the number of outstanding designated enterprises under the direction of the Ministry of Transport as seen above at the time of the above disposition, and as long as the disposition of refusal of registration was made regardless of the defect in the registration application procedure, the determination of illegality of the disposition of this case on the ground of the procedural defect cannot be made.

In this view, the court below's decision that the rejection disposition was illegal on the ground that it was made on the ground that it does not fall under any of the grounds for rejection of the disposition under Article 8 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act (amended by December 31, 1982), and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides for the grounds for rejection of the disposition, is justifiable. The court below's decision that the disposition was unlawful on the ground that it was made on the ground that it did not fall under any of the grounds for rejection of the disposition, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law such as the misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing or the lack of reasons,

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

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)