Whether the establishment of standards for the method of recognizing driving experience within the order of priority determined for private taxi transportation business licenses and their licenses belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency.

The private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that grants specific persons the rights or interests, and it belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, except as otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognition of driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license is the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, the calculation of driving experience cannot be deemed unlawful, unless the established standards are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable.

Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13526 delivered on April 28, 1992; 91Nu10541 delivered on July 10, 1992; 93Nu4243 Delivered on October 12, 1993

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu521 delivered on July 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief are also examined as supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

The private taxi transport business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an administrative act that gives a specific person the right or interest, and unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, and the establishment of the standards for the method of recognition of driving experience within the order of priority determined for the license is also the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, unless the established standards are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, it cannot be deemed unlawful to calculate driving experience (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu692, May 29, 1984; 91Nu10541, Jul. 10, 1992; 93Nu4243, Oct. 12, 1993).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, in this case where the defendant set the criteria for calculating driving experience meeting the requirements for issuing the driver's license of this case and there is no evidence to deem it objectively unreasonable to recognize the issuance of the certificate of driving experience submitted by the applicant as an operator who employs the driver, in principle, only when the contents are proved by the certificate issued by the business operator, the documents cited by the plaintiff are all prepared by the labor union head of the non-party company, not the non-party company. Thus, in light of the above criteria established by the defendant, regardless of whether the contents of the contents are true or not, the defendant's disposition of this case which rejected the driver's license of this case without recognizing them as evidence for calculating driving experience of the plaintiff, non-party 1, and non-party 2 cannot be considered as material for calculating driving experience of the plaintiff, non-party 1, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)