(a) Measures that can be taken by the competent authority where it is found that the driver's career of the transferee of the private taxi transport business or the certificate of qualification of taxi driver has been forged;

B. Whether the revocation of the beneficial administrative disposition based on a fraudulent application and the abuse of discretionary power

A. In a case where it is found that a transferee's driving experience or qualification certificate of taxi driver was forged after being one of the requirements for the acquisition of private taxi transport business, the competent authority may revoke the approval disposition on the transfer or acquisition of a defective private taxi transport business license for a person who is not eligible to obtain a license, as well as revocation of the approval disposition on the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business license for a transferee

B. In a case where the disposition authority revokes an administrative disposition on the ground that there was a defect in the administrative disposition, if the disposition is a so-called beneficial administrative act that grants the rights or interests to the people, the disposition may be revoked only when the public interest needs to cancel the disposition and the disadvantage the parties would suffer due to the cancellation and it is strong enough to justify the disadvantages the parties would sustain. However, if the defect in the disposition is due to the party's act of application through abolition or other fraudulent methods, it shall be deemed that the party was likely to have discovered that the benefits arising from the disposition were illegally acquired, and even if the administrative agency did not consider it, it shall not be deemed to have abused the discretion, and even if it did not consider it, it shall not be deemed to have abused the discretion. In this case, the party's fact is that the application by abolition or other fraudulent methods was made passive through a third party.

(a) Articles 28(1)4 and 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general], Articles 19 and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu939 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988,535) 94Nu4882 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2538) 95Nu4926 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 307) 95Nu8621 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1991, 2442) 93Nu18969 delivered on August 23, 1991 (Gong194, 1348)

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu7362 delivered on July 5, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. The authorization of the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business license by the competent authority is a disposition of authorization in the sense of completing the legal effect of the transfer by supplementing the transfer act between the transferor and the transferee, as well as a disposition of granting a license with the same content as that of the transferor to the transferee under related Acts and subordinate statutes. If it is found after the forgery of a personal taxi transport business license, the competent authority may cancel the authorization disposition of the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business license by the transferee as well as the cancellation of the authorization disposition of the defective personal taxi transport business license for the transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4882, Aug. 23, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8621, Sept. 29, 195). The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of a private taxi transport business license.

2. Where a disposition authority revokes an administrative disposition on the ground that there is a defect in the administrative disposition, if the disposition is so-called "beneficial administrative act that gives citizens the rights or interests, the disposition may be revoked only when it is necessary for the public interest to cancel the disposition, and when the public interest needs to be compared and compared to the disadvantage suffered by the parties due to the cancellation, and when it is strong enough to justify the disadvantage suffered by the parties concerned. However, if the defect in the disposition is due to the party's act of application through abolition or other fraudulent methods, it shall be deemed that the party concerned was aware that the benefit by the disposition was illegally acquired, and even if it was not considered by the administrative authority, it shall not be an abuse of discretionary power. In this case, the party's fact does not change because the party's application by abolition or other fraudulent methods was made passive through a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu939, Feb. 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 9Nu2596, Jul. 28, 1995; 2009>

See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8621 delivered on September 29, 1995, etc.

Furthermore, as to the instant case, even though the Plaintiff failed to meet the qualification requirements at the time of applying for the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business license, the Plaintiff filed an application with a forged driver’s license, and the Defendant considered the above driver’s license and the taxi driver’s license to be valid, and as long as the Plaintiff issued a license, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s revocation disposition of the instant license was unlawful in deviation from the scope of discretion. The lower court is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to abuse of discretionary authority. We do not

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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-tae (Presiding Justice)