The case holding that "a person who has served for at least seven years in the same taxi company" in the class 2 D of the priority order for the issuance of individual taxi licenses counting from the date of the initial entry in the case where he/she was reentered after a disciplinary dismissal but was judged in favor of the confirmation of nullity of dismissal.

The case holding that "a person who has served for at least seven years in the same taxi company as of the date of application for a license," which is set forth in the second class "D of the issuance order of individual taxi licenses in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, if a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal was filed and a judgment was finalized upon winning a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity of dismissal regarding disciplinary dismissal while serving in the taxi company."

Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu20086 delivered on October 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 88 of the Seoul Special Decree to grant a license to a person who satisfies certain basic requirements under the Act on the Issuance Order of Private Taxis, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the above license on the prescribed date, and the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the above license, and the non-party 1's non-party 2's "the person who has served for not less than 7 years in the same taxi company as of the date of application for license" issued by the non-party 2' of the first order of priority of issuance of the license, and the plaintiff's application for the issuance of a private taxi license from April 1, 1981 to March 20, 190 to the above non-party 2's judgment on the above non-party 9's ground that the plaintiff's non-party 2's judgment on the above non-party 9's non-party 2's application for the above non-party 9's non-party 9' in Seoul.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)