1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s private taxi transport business license for the Plaintiff on December 9, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 27, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, and began to run a private taxi transport business by taking over a license for a private taxi transport business on June 18, 2013.

B. At around 17:00 on May 31, 2015, the Plaintiff, while driving the said private taxi while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.134% in the vicinity of the frequency located in the north-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si B, was controlled by the police. Accordingly, on June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of revocation on the said driver’s license.

C. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the revocation of the said car driver’s license. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 4, 2015.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said driver's license, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment against both the first, second, and third instances, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2017.

(Seoul District Court 2015Gudan11276, Daegu High Court 2016Nu4295, the dismissal of the appeal by Supreme Court 2016Du5758, the appellate court of the Daegu High Court 2015 Gudan11276, is dismissed.

On December 9, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s private taxi transport business license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 85(1)37 of the Passenger Transport Service Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked.”

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a special amnesty on August 15, 2015 and newly acquired a Class 1 ordinary driving license on September 2, 2015, before the instant disposition was issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), obvious facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present his opinion before rendering the instant disposition and omitted the hearing procedures. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff’s license is granted depending on the optical dysium.