[1] Whether an administrative agency's granting a license for a private taxi transport business is unlawful because it objectively unreasonable or unreasonably treating the taxi driver's career rather than the driver's career of other types of vehicles such as buses (negative)

[2] The case holding that the Gu-si's disposition of excluding the issuance of private taxi transport business licenses to lower-ranking persons than those subject to the license issuance pursuant to the "Public Notice on the Recruitment of Private taxi Transport Business License in 2007" was lawful in determining priority in issuing private taxi licenses and giving preferential treatment to those who have been engaged in driving a taxi compared to those of other business vehicles in the same order of priority in determining the priority in issuing private taxi licenses

[1] Articles 5 (see current Article 4) and 6 (see current Article 5) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 17 (see current Article 19) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 66, Nov. 6, 2008) / [2] Articles 5 (see current Article 4), 6 (see current Article 5) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 17 (see current Article 19) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 66, Nov. 6, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9463 Decided November 12, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11228 Decided July 23, 2009

Plaintiff

Guri Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu3625 decided August 21, 2008

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined. The license of private taxi transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act is the discretionary act of an administrative agency that grants a specific person the right or interest, and the standard necessary to grant a license within the scope of the above Act and its Enforcement Rules also belong to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, unless there are any special circumstances that are objectively reasonable or unreasonable in terms of the established standard, the intention of the administrative agency should be respected as far as possible. In light of the fact that the administrative agency's license of private taxi transport business can be more useful for private taxi driving than that of other vehicles such as buses, it cannot be objectively reasonable or unreasonable to give a certain preferential treatment to private taxi driving service than that of other vehicles such as buses (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9463 Decided November 12, 2004).

According to the records, on March 5, 2007, the defendant set 23 personal taxi transport business licenses in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the "Act"), Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 66 of Nov. 6, 2008; hereinafter the "Enforcement Rule") and the old-si Personal Passenger Transport Business License Guidelines (Enforcement Rule No. 27 of Feb. 23, 2007) for 207, as the first priority in licenses, the second priority in licenses, the second priority in driving of a taxi under subparagraph 1 with no duty of good faith for 10 or more years, and the second priority in driving of a taxi under subparagraph 2 with no duty of care for 13 or more years, and the first five or more years in the case of a passenger transport business.

As above, in the public notice of recruitment of private taxi transport business license in 2007, the old-si private taxi transport business license is given preferential treatment to those who have worked in a taxi transport business rather than those who have worked in other means of transport in the same order of priority, and furthermore, if there is competition within the same order of priority, the defendant's priority is that the private taxi transport business license was introduced to promote safe operation as compensation to those who work in an exemplary and healthy manner among those who initially drive for a long-term accident, and that the private taxi transport business is introduced to encourage safe operation as compensation for their old age. The private taxi transport business operator's own driving is able to secure the safety of passengers' life and body. Since the most important mark is the driving experience of the same kind of vehicle, it can be compared with the driving experience of other means of transport, Article 6 of the Act, Article 17 (7) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, which requires preferential treatment to those who have worked in the above private taxi transport business for a long-term period of time to protect their trust and trust in the private taxi transport business.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition to exclude the license of this case from the other position is illegal as it unfairly discriminates against the driver of other types of vehicles such as buses without reasonable grounds compared to those of taxi drivers, and it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of equality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's appeal pointing

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)