A. Whether a person may invoke the trust interest in administrative actions in relation to the revocation of a license obtained by a fraudulent method (negative)

B. In a case where the license is mitigated due to the circumstances of the licensing authority after obtaining a license by a fraudulent method (negative), whether the defect, which is the reason for revocation of license, is cured (negative)

A. Since a person who obtained permission, license, etc. in a fraudulent manner is well aware of the fact that his/her benefit was illegally acquired and is expected to have the possibility of revocation, he/she cannot invoke his/her trust interest in the above disposition, and there is no room for discussion about abuse of discretionary power even without considering it by an administrative agency.

(b) If a license for private taxi transport business was granted by fraudulent means, such as preparing and submitting a false copy of resident registration which has failed to meet the qualification requirements for application, even if the license was relaxed due to the reasons of the licensing authority, the defect, which is the reason for the cancellation of license, cannot be deemed to have been cured

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu200 Delivered on December 26, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1108 delivered on November 1, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In a case where an administrative agency grants a license, license, etc. and then revokes or withdraws a disadvantage to the beneficiary, the cancellation or withdrawal disposition shall be deemed to be a binding discretionary act. Thus, if the exercise is extremely unfair or abused, the administrative disposition shall be deemed to be unlawful, and there is a father who reserves the right to cancel the license, license, or withdrawal. However, since a person who obtained a license by a deceptive method is well aware that his benefits have been illegally acquired, and there is a well-known possibility of cancellation, it shall not be considered that he may invoke the trust interest in the above disposition, and even if the administrative agency does not consider it, the abuse of discretionary power shall not be discussed (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu200, Dec. 26, 1984). As determined by the court below, the plaintiffs, one of the eligibility requirements for the license for private taxi transport business in this case, shall be revoked as of December 31, 1981; if the plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria of "the person who has resided within Gyeonggi-do, who has continuously resided in the public announcement date, it shall not be established in collusion with the above non-party 4 employee's licence.

With respect to the second ground:

As seen above, inasmuch as the plaintiffs fail to meet their qualification requirements and obtained a license for private taxi transport business by means of fraud, such as the preparation and submission of false certified copy of the resident registration, the qualification for application for the license shall be mitigated on November 19, 1982, as determined by the court below, and the decision of the court below shall not be deemed to have been cured even if the second application for the license was announced to the effect that the person who has resided in Gyeonggi-do and who has resided in Gyeonggi-do continuously until the date of the public announcement and the person who has been qualified for personal license in large cities shall have resided in Gyeonggi-do for the last one month or more, the second application for the license shall not be deemed to have been cured. The decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)