logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2015.06.10 2014누774
개인택시 신규면허 미인가 처분취소
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit.

purport.

Reasons

1. In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the letter No. 2 through No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be quoted in the letter No. 2 through No. 4 of the

2. Judgment of our courts

A. (1) The legal nature of the criteria related to the private taxi transport business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act is that the private taxi transport business license under the said Act grants a specific person the right or interest to a specific person, barring any special provision in the law, and it also belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency, as long as the establishment or modification of the criteria for the recognition of driving experience in the order determined for the license belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, insofar as the establishment or modification of such criteria is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the opinion of the administrative

(2) Although it is clear that an administrative agency’s application falls under the order of priority in the issuance of a license when examining whether to issue a license, the administrative agency’s rejection of license may be deemed an abuse of discretion, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19137, Jan. 28, 2010). On the other hand, the licensing standard is an internal control of the administrative agency’s exercise of discretion, i.e., the discretionary rule., the internal control of the administrative agency’s exercise of discretion. Since the discretionary rule has no legal effect to externally bind citizens or courts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20236, Mar. 27, 1998). It does not take effect only when it is made out of the outside (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu19137, Jan. 28, 2010).

arrow