[1] Whether a license for private taxi transportation business is a discretionary act (affirmative) and the method of interpreting and applying the license standard

[2] Whether a new fact that was not submitted at the time of an administrative disposition can be a data to determine the legitimacy of the disposition (negative)

[3] Whether driving experience from the date of application for license to the date of issuance of license is included in driving experience required for private taxi transportation business license standards (negative)

[1] A private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, and barring special provisions in the law, it is discretionary act, and determination of the necessary criteria for the license also belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, barring special circumstances where the established criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency's intent should be respected as far as possible.

[2] Unless there exist special circumstances, the lawfulness of an administrative act shall be determined at the time of the administrative disposition. Thus, new facts not submitted at the time of the application for a license cannot be considered as materials to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition.

[3] According to Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the experience of driving an automobile for business as the criteria for a license of a private taxi transport business shall be calculated based on the past driving experience counting from the date of application for a license. Thus, the driving experience from the date of application for a license to the date of issuance of a license shall not be included in the driving experience based on

[1] Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 4 and 6 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19033 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1908) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8461 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3935) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14841 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong196Ha, 2695) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu692 delivered on May 29, 198 (Gong1984, 1989) 97Nu2897 delivered on July 30, 1995 (Gong196Ha, 2695) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu29897 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1984, 1202)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu23448 delivered on April 4, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period are examined as well.

1. A license for a private taxi transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants rights or interests to a specific person, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, barring any special provision in the statutes. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the established standard is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, an administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14841, Jul. 14, 1995; 95Nu8461, Nov. 10, 1995; 95Nu8461, Nov. 10, 1995; 200; 83Nu692, May 29, 1984; 200Nu86865, Mar. 28, 1985).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff submitted a certificate of driving experience issued by the non-party Joint Venture Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) with the driving experience period from March 20, 1986 to November 29, 194 when applying for the license of the private taxi transport business in this case, and the defendant issued a public notice to the effect that the driver's driving experience submitted at the time of the public notice of recruitment of the private taxi transport business in 1994 should be calculated only after confirming the ground for issuance (the actual driver), and that he did not recognize the submission of additional work experience at the time of the confirmation. The court below determined that the defendant's measures were lawful for the period excluding the period of working experience from October 21, 1985 to February 18, 1986, when the plaintiff did not submit at the time of the application for the license in this case, from March 1, 196 to the same month.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen above, the judgment of the court below is just, and the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1903 delivered on May 27, 1993, which states that the theory of lawsuit is delivered, is that the argument was asserted at the time of the disposition, but the supporting materials were not submitted, and the case is different from this case. Thus, the above judgment of the court below does not necessarily mean that the above judgment of the court below is contrary to the above precedents. In light of the purport of the above precedents, even if the above precedents are included in the guidelines for personal taxi transport business license management in 1994, the above disposition of this case is not illegal, and therefore there is no error of law such as violation of precedents, mistake of facts due to incomplete deliberation, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of equality, etc.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the premise that the materials concerning the reasons that were not asserted at the time of the instant disposition can be submitted until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below held that the plaintiff was not driving for the 13-day strike of the non-party company trade union from June 14, 191, and that the strike was an illegal strike since it did not go through legitimate legal procedures under the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the transportation and employees belonging to Seoul Special Metropolitan City were promised to include the above strike period in driving career. According to the records, the defendant argued that the defendant cannot be recognized as driving career even if the strike terminated within 14 days, and the purport of the plaintiff's assertion is included in the above argument. Thus, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on macroscopic evidence, and determined that the defendant's disposition of this case excluding the plaintiff is legitimate, since the plaintiff was a preliminary engineer on May 194 as of May 13, 1994, since the plaintiff was a preliminary engineer only for the period of normally engaged in driving practice under the company's rules of employment or collective agreement, but it cannot be included in the above period in accordance with the licensing guidelines that it is not recognized in a case where there is no clear evidence, or in a case where it is an ordinary non-party preliminary engineer's driving experience. Even if the above period is included in the driving experience of domestic affairs, the plaintiff's driving experience of the above period is below eight

In light of the records, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, setting criteria necessary for the license of private taxi transport business belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an abuse of discretionary power by setting illegal criteria beyond the constitutional equality principle and the limit of delegated legislation. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts or abuse of discretionary power, such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. In theory, the driving experience from the date of application for license to the date of issuance of license should also be included in the driving experience as the criteria for the license of private taxi transport business. However, according to Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, since the driving experience of private taxi transport business as the criteria for the license of private taxi transport business provides that the former driving experience should be calculated based on the date of application for license, it cannot be accepted, and the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8317 Decided September 15, 1995, which states that the theory of lawsuit is in place, is related to the accidentless driving experience which should be counted from the date of last driving under the above Enforcement Rule, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

5. Therefore, all arguments are without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)