Plaintiff (Law Firm Uniform, Attorney Quota-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Goyang-si Market

October 10, 2005

1. The Defendant’s decision to exclude the Plaintiff from the license for private taxi transportation business on October 5, 2004 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2004, the Defendant issued a notice of the supply and disposition of a license for a private taxi transport business in Goyang-si under Article 2004-164 on March 31, 2004. In the foregoing notice, the license for a private taxi transport business is 150 including seven persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and the priority order is based on the Regulations on Handling Affairs of License for Private taxi Transport Business in Goyang-si (hereinafter “instant Business Handling Regulations”), which includes the contents that the license is based on the work experience of the same driving company.

B. On April 21 of the same year, the Plaintiff applied for a license for private taxi transport business according to the above public notice.

C. On October 5 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) issued a public notice of confirmation as to the person eligible for license under Article 2004-510 of the Goyang-si’s public notice; (b) determined some of the applicants as eligible for the second priority No. 4; and (c) excluded the Plaintiff from the person eligible for license on the ground that the applicant falls under the second priority of 296 among applicants as the third priority 2.

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on Nov. 23, 2004, but the said commission rejected the appeal on Feb. 7, 2005 on the ground that even if the Plaintiff’s assertion excludes “faith-faith-faith-based and the same company’s continuous service clause” and re-assessments the order of license, it constitutes 200 out of 351 applicants and thus, the instant disposition was revoked and the Plaintiff does not have any interest in recovering

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

Even if the requirements for continuous service of the same company are necessary, it is against the principle of equality by unfairly discriminating against a person who has served in a company other than the Plaintiff for a considerable period of time as of the date of the public announcement of the application for license, and such discrimination is contrary to the principle of proportionality, which causes a significant difference in the priority, and thus, it also violates the principle of proportionality, and thus, it infringes on the freedom to choose occupation since the restriction on the freedom to choose a taxi company which has good working conditions, and thus, it constitutes an infringement on the freedom to choose occupation. Thus, the above contents in the administrative affairs of this case are invalid, and even though the administrative affairs of this case has a definition provision on the duty of good faith, although the administrative affairs of this case has a definition provision on the duty of good faith, the administrative affairs of this case can not be applied to the requirements for the "driver who has performed the duty of good faith" of 2nd priority 4.

(2) Defendant

The determination of whether to issue a license for private taxi transport business and its criteria are subject to the Defendant’s discretion, and the “the same company’s continuous service and duty of good faith” provision recognizes the efforts and sincerity to serve for citizens in the same company under social norms in examining a license for private taxi transport business with high public interest. This provision constitutes reasonable discrimination because it is difficult to treat the same person who has trusted and faithfully worked for the same company, internal conflict with the company, and has left office due to personal reasons. If there is no such provision, the administrative rules of this case cannot be deemed null and void, and since most local governments of Gyeonggi-do have set the same or similar standards for most local governments because social conflicts are likely to occur due to the threat of employment stability in the related industry, it cannot be said that the administrative regulations of this case are set as of the date of publication of the application. Since many interested parties respect this trust and respect it, it cannot be deemed unfair merely because

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 1-1, and 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2, and the result of the commission to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do of this court for the delivery of documents, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff worked for the non-party cultural taxi company from May 1, 1996 to September 3, 2003 while working for the non-party cultural taxi company from October 29, 2003 to April 12, 2004, and there is no counter-proof. In light of the above facts acknowledged above, if the Plaintiff does not limit the working requirements for the same company to the "company as of the date of the public announcement of the application for the license" as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is the front line among those entitled to the license issuance. Accordingly, the issue of this case can be said to have the validity of the regulations on the handling of affairs of this case, which set the requirements for the same company or good faith as of the public announcement date.

(2) The purpose of determining the person subject to a license for private taxi transport business is to promote public welfare by verifying the person’s operational ability in consideration of the public interest of private taxi transport business and compensating for a long-term accidentless driver, such as smooth transportation of passengers and ensuring safe operation of drivers. In addition, the reason why the person subject to a license for private taxi transport business differs depending on the long-term continuous service period is to prevent the movement of workers by encouraging long-term continuous service, thereby providing stable transportation services to citizens, and to recognize the order of priority more than those who have failed to continue to work for a long time in the same taxi company due to bad attitude of duty or accident.

However, the calculation of the continuous service period of the same company as the administrative rule of this case requires the continuous service period of the same company (Article 18(2)7). The continuous service period of a company other than the company working as of the date of the public notification of application for license is included only in the driving experience, and the period longer than the person who drives a taxi in the same company for not less than 7 years (Article 2(2)1). In other words, even if the same company drives a taxi with no accident for not less than 13 years (order 12), the first priority is given only when the person who drives the taxi in the same company for not less than 6 years (order 24), even if the person who drives the taxi in the same company for not less than 7 years (order 32), the second priority order is behind the person who drives the taxi in the same company for not less than 2 years (order 24) and the second priority order is less than 10 years (Article 18(2)7).

As above, the period of service in the “company working as of the date of the public announcement of the application for license” serves a critical role in the calculation of priority. This does not directly relate to the purport of recognizing the period of service of the same company as the requirement of priority order. In addition, the employee of the taxi company may retire for a long time in consideration of the company’s working conditions, etc. and such severance from employment may not be deemed as encouraging employment stability or social conflicts. Even if it is necessary to make the applicant’s good faith and personality as the criteria for examination, this does not determine how long a long-term work has been conducted in the same company based on the records of the work, etc.

(3) Thus, the administrative rules of this case, which set the same company's working period of the same company as "company working as of the date of the public announcement of the application for license" or set the same taxi operator from "the same taxi company" as "the same taxi company operating a taxi for not less than four years retroactively from the date of the public announcement of the application for license," shall not be deemed as violating the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality, and thus, it shall not be deemed as null and void. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case based on these provisions shall also be deemed as violating the freedom of occupation under the Constitution to guarantee the transfer

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Han-ho (Presiding Judge)