Where the head of a local government has corrected a statutory interpretation in the course of performing his/her duties, whether it is liable (affirmative)

Since the cancellation of the authorization for transfer of private taxi transport business is due to negligence due to the Mayor's failure to pay due attention to the application of the statutes without the basis of the statutes in performing his/her duties, the City is responsible for compensation for damage caused to private taxi transport business operators due to legitimate

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1598 (Law Firm 29Na284, Gong666, Gong14293)

Madilty

Daegu Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 8,044,350 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from February 15, 1987 to November 5 of the same year, and the amount calculated by the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 22,312,928 won and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

In light of the above facts, the defendant's judgment of the 1984.3.14 on the transfer of the passenger transport business of this case to the 198-2 defendant, and the 19-year Supreme Court's ruling on the transfer of the 196-year passenger transport business of this case (the 2-year Supreme Court's ruling on the 19-year passenger transport business of this case was delivered to the 2-year passenger transport business of this case, and the 1-year passenger transport business of this case was delivered to the 1-year passenger transport business of this case. The 2-year passenger transport business of this case was delivered to the 1-year passenger transport business of this case. The 1-year passenger transport business of this case. The 1-year passenger transport business of this case was delivered to the 1-year passenger transport business of this case. The plaintiff's judgment on the 2-year passenger transport business of this case and the 1-year passenger transport business of this case was delivered to the 1-year passenger transport business of this case. The 2-year passenger transport business of this case is without merit.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

On August 18, 1981, Nonparty 1 took over the personal taxi transport business of Nonparty 281 and the vehicle number 4Ha2281, the 1978 model 1978 model passenger vehicle, and (a) he/she must directly manage it from Defendant 3 on September 10 of the same year, and is not allowed to manage it to another person. (b) A mutual aid association or comprehensive insurance must be purchased.

(C)The transferee shall attach a personal taxi license photograph tag to the vehicle. (D) The transferee shall succeed to the transferor's duty of care. (f) The transferee shall order the suspension of the business or may cancel this authorization on August 9, 1982 on the condition that the transferee will not transfer the above personal taxi transport business to the Plaintiff on August 16, 1982, and the Plaintiff will not transfer the same contents as the above (A) through (f) and five (5) years before the cancellation of the license for the above passenger transport business. On the other hand, the transferee shall not be subject to the cancellation of the license for the above passenger transport business of the Plaintiff No. 16 (2) before the cancellation of the license for the above passenger transport business of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff and the above Hun-Ga were not subject to medical treatment for more than 1 year at the time of application for the transfer of the personal taxi transport business of the instant case. (3) The transferee shall not be subject to the cancellation of the license for the above cancellation of the license for transfer of the Plaintiff No. 16.

However, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of private taxi transport business to the plaintiff on March 14, 1984 or the cancellation of the permission for transfer of the above passenger transport business, provides that when a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs applies for a license for passenger transport business or general area transport business on condition that he will drive one automobile, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 (1), the Minister of Construction and Transportation may grant a license, and the provisions of paragraph (5) of the above Article 28 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall not apply to the case where a person who has obtained a license under paragraph (1) of the above Article intends to transfer his business to the plaintiff pursuant to paragraph (1) of the above Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule, unless the person who has obtained the license falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he shall be a person meeting the qualifications of paragraph (1) of the above Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule, and the provisions of Article 15 (5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Business Act shall not apply to the above passenger Transport Business Act.

Even before the provision of Article 15 (5) 1 of the above Enforcement Rule was newly established pursuant to Article 741 of the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to transfer or take over private taxi transport business, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has guidelines to deal with the same restriction on transfer or taking over of the business, and Article 15 (3) of the above Enforcement Rule concerning the application of Article 15 (5) of the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation also provides that a person who operates a business after obtaining a license at the time of the enforcement of the above Rule shall be entitled to transfer under the previous provision. Thus, the previous provision of the above provision states that the disposition at the time when the Minister of Construction and Transportation cancels the private taxi transport business license of this case in violation of the disposal guidelines by the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall be a legitimate disposition based on the law, but

Therefore, the disposition to revoke the authorization of transfer or acquisition of private taxi transport business against the plaintiff of the defendant city is due to the negligence that the head of Daegu Special Metropolitan City of the defendant city was responsible for the performance of his duties and did not pay due attention to the application of the law, so the defendant city is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the illegal disposition under the main sentence of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

As seen above, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff renounced the above right to claim damages against the defendant for reasons as set forth in the main right to claim damages against the defendant, but it cannot be recognized as being above. Therefore, it is groundless.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Expected import loss;

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 8-12 of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8-12 and Eul evidence 2- 2's testimony, the plaintiff acquired the private taxi transport business of this case from non-party 1 and the fact inquiry report to the chief director of the Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City, 1982, and then transferred it to defendant Si on August 16 of the same year after taking over it from non-party 2's private taxi transport business of this case from 1982 to 10.5's transfer of the defendant city. The plaintiff can obtain the above private taxi transport business of this case from 200, 200, 200, 300, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 1978, 60, 60, 60, 50, 196, 20, 30, 196, 200, 10, 5, 2000, 5, 2,0.

(b) consolation money;

The plaintiff sought compensation of 2,00,000 won for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the cancellation of the permission for transfer or takeover of private taxi transport business in this case. However, the compensation for mental suffering due to the infringement of property right shall be accepted only when the defendant, the infringer, was aware of the special circumstances or could have predicted such circumstances due to special circumstances. According to the facts recognized earlier, the above disposition of cancellation at the defendant's city was made by the employee of the defendant's office to perform his duties, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was aware or could have predicted that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering due to the cancellation, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was aware or could have predicted that such special circumstances were known or could have predicted. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of consolation money is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from February 15, 1987 to November 5, 1987, which is recorded and clear as the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as the plaintiff seeks from February 15, 1987, which is the day after the date of this decision (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, but it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the scope of his obligation, so the above Special Act shall not apply). Since the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act from the next day to the full payment date, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified only within the above recognized crime, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and with respect to the payment of the costs of lawsuit, the declaration of provisional execution shall be applied to Article 92 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 6 of the Special Act.

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)