(a) The meaning of the date of the last driving, which is the starting date of the driving experience without accidents under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

B. Whether the initial date in calculation of the experience of driving an accident without a personal taxi transportation business license is the discretion of an administrative agency

A. The date of the last driver's practice, which is the starting date of the accidentless driving experience under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which provides that a person who has been engaged in an accidentless driving for not less than five years shall be entitled to a private taxi transport business license shall not mean the date of issuance of an accidentless driver certificate attached to the application for a license before the issuance of the license.

B. The calculation of the initial date of driving experience for non-accidents under Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the requirements for private taxi transport business license, cannot be deemed to belong to the administrative agency's discretion.

(a)Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu655 decided Dec. 23, 1986 (Gong1987,262) 87Nu158 decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1987,1103) 90Nu5610 decided Dec. 7, 1990 (Gong191,491)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu27801 delivered on May 9, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The judgment of the court below is just to purport that the date of the last driver's license application or the date of issuance of certificate of accidentless driver's license attached to the application for license is not the date of the last driver's license application or the date of issuance of certificate of accidentless driver's license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu5610, Dec. 7, 1990; 87Nu158, May 26, 1987; 86Nu655, Dec. 23, 1986; 86Nu655, Dec. 23, 1986) which provides that a person with non-accidentless driving experience can be granted a private taxi transport business license, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to non-accidentless driving experience and the legal principles as to private taxi transport business license, or by misunderstanding the guidelines for private taxi transport business license.

In addition, a private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person a right or interest, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, so long as it is not recognized that the criteria for the priority order for issuing a license determined by an administrative agency are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the intention of the administrative agency should be respected as far as possible, unless it is recognized that the criteria for the priority order for issuing a license, etc. are unlawful. However, it cannot be said that the calculation of the initial date of calculating the experience of non-accidentd taxi transport business license under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the requirement for a private taxi transport business license, belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)