[1] Whether the revocation of the driver's license for private taxi transport business on the ground of the revocation of the driver's license for private taxi transport business to a private taxi transport business entity who newly acquired a driver's license and directly drives a private taxi on behalf of another person after the driver's license was revoked due to drinking (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a disposition to revoke a license of a private taxi transport business under paragraph (1) has no deviation from or abuse of discretion

[1] Since a license for private taxi transport business is based on the legal condition that a license holder should directly drive a motor vehicle, if a person who obtained the license loses his/her driver's license, he/she cannot drive a private taxi in the end. Thus, barring special circumstances, it is legitimate to revoke a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that he/she has revoked his/her driver's license due to drinking driving, etc. and reports his/her substitute driving to another person after he/she revoked his/her driver's license for private taxi transport business, barring special circumstances.

[2] Where revoking a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license for private taxi transport business, it would infringe on the right to obtain benefits already granted to the person who obtained the license. Thus, even if there exists a ground for revocation under the law, the exercise of the right to obtain revocation shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantages to be borne by the other party only when it is necessary for the significant public interest to justify the infringement of the right to obtain benefits. If it is erroneous, the disposition of revocation should be unlawful. However, considering that the disposition of revocation of a license for private taxi transport business leads to the livelihood of private taxi transport business operators due to the pertinent disposition of revocation, and that private taxi transport business operators already acquired a driver's license and directly drive a private taxi at the time of the pertinent disposition of revocation, it is not necessary to establish an order of private taxi transport business in consideration of the basic duty of a driver who should not drive a private taxi in order to establish traffic order and prevent accidents, and the circumstances such as the cancellation of a driver's license by driving under the influence of alcohol or driving under the influence of public transport business.

[1] Articles 4 and 31(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 2 subparag. 1(f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 15-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 3(2) [Attachment 1] of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 13, Mar. 28, 1995); Articles 41 and 78 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general administrative disposition] / [2] Article 31(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general administrative disposition] and Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu483 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 172), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5713 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1594) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu632 delivered on December 8, 1987 (Gong198, 294), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu603 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong198, 460) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu537 delivered on June 11, 191 (Gong191, 1937)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Tae-dong, Attorneys Kim Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu6073 delivered on November 21, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A license for private taxi transport business is a legal condition that a license holder should directly drive a motor vehicle. If a license holder loses his/her driver's license, he/she cannot drive a private taxi in the end. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, it constitutes grounds such as cancellation of license for private taxi transport business (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5713, Jun. 26, 1990) under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5713, Jun. 26, 199). A license holder for private taxi transport business is merely able to report his/her personal taxi transport business to a licensing agency on behalf of another person and allow him/her to drive a motor vehicle on behalf of another person in accordance with Article 15-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act only in cases where there are temporary or de facto disabilities in the direct driving of a private taxi, but there are sufficient conditions to do so due to their relationship or smooth performance of business.

Therefore, it cannot be said that a person who obtained a license has reported his/her substitute driving in a situation where the legal disability that prevents him/her from driving a private taxi due to the loss of his/her driver's license has occurred and had another person to drive a private taxi on behalf of him/her, and it does not constitute grounds such as revocation of the license. Moreover, it cannot be said that the grounds such as revocation of the license already occurred because the person who obtained the license is driving a motor vehicle after acquiring the driver's license later and

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiffs who are private taxi transport business licenses have revoked their driver's license due to the causes of traffic accidents while drunk driving or drunk driving, and determined that this constitutes the grounds for revocation of license (when violating the heavy license conditions) under Article 3 (2) [Attachment Table 1] of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation of Business License under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 13 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 28, March 28, 1995).

The judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for revocation of the license of private taxi transport business. The plaintiffs' ground for appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the part of the judgment of the court below, which held that such grounds for revocation exist without any grounds for revocation as prescribed in Article 31 (1) 3 and 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, is related to the part of the judgment of the court below on the family and additional basis, and as long as the above judgment of the court below

2. Where revoking a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license for private taxi transport business, it is an infringement of the right of vested rights already granted to the person who obtained the license. Thus, even if there is a ground for revocation under the law, the exercise of the right of revocation shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantages to be suffered by the other party only when there is a need for important public interest to justify the infringement of the right of vested rights. If it is erroneous, it constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and thus, the revocation disposition should be unlawful.

According to the records, considering the fact that the disposition of revocation of a license for private taxi transport business of this case leads to the plaintiffs' livelihood due to the disposition of revocation of the license for private taxi transport business of this case and the fact that the plaintiffs had already acquired a new driver's license for a private taxi and directly driven a private taxi at the time of the disposition of revocation of the license of this case, considering the basic duty as a driver who should not drive a private taxi for the purpose of establishing traffic order and preventing accidents, and the circumstance that the driver's license for private taxi transport business of this case is revoked due to the occurrence of a traffic accident while driving a private taxi transport business or causing a traffic accident while driving a private taxi transport business of this case, it is not deemed that the public interest needs to establish the order of private taxi transport business of this case, compared to the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiffs.

The court below is just in holding that the disposition of revocation of the license of this case has no illegality of deviation from or abuse of discretion, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of discretion.

3. Any ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, 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.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)