[1] In a case where the competent authority grants authorization for the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business, whether the granting of a license to the transferee is included in the disposition of granting the same content as that of the transferor’s license (affirmative)

[2] Whether the transferee's business license can be revoked on the grounds of the revocation of the transferee's business license for the transferor, who had been prior to the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business after obtaining authorization for the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a defect in a beneficial administrative disposition was caused by a party’s concealment or other fraudulent act, whether the party’s trust interest should be considered when cancelling the disposition (negative)

[4] In a case where Eul, who transferred private taxi transport business to Eul, obtained authorization by illegal means at the time of transfer of the business from Eul, and the administrative agency revoked Gap's private taxi transport business license due to Gap's succession to Eul's illegal act, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that Eul's private taxi transport business license can be revoked even if there are no separate legal grounds, since Eul's transfer and transferee of the above business was defective in disposition and this is due to Gap's application by fraudulent means

[1] Article 14(2) and (4) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 9733, May 27, 2009; see current Article 14(5)); Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21077, Oct. 8, 2009); Article 17(9) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance No. 666, Nov. 6, 2008; see current Article 19(8)) / [2] Article 14(4) (see current Article 14(5) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 9733, May 27, 2009; / [3] Article 4(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act; Article 19(4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21077, Oct. 1, 2009; 【

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4882 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2538) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18960 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2010) Supreme Court Decision 2009Du17018 Decided April 8, 2010 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669 Delivered on May 25, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1162), Supreme Court Decision 2008Du8628 delivered on November 13, 2008 (Gong208Ha, 1682)

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Boman International, Attorneys Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu36038 decided July 7, 2009

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 14(2) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 9733, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same) and Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21077, Oct. 8, 2008); Article 14(4) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act provides that a transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business must obtain authorization from the competent authority; the transferee shall succeed to the status of the transferor as a transport business operator; Article 17(9) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 666, Nov. 6, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a private taxi transport business transferee shall meet the qualification requirements for a private taxi transport business license under Article 14(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21077, Oct. 8, 2008; see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da394, supra.

On the other hand, when there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may cancel it by itself even without any separate legal basis. However, when the disposition agency cancels a beneficial administrative disposition, it may cancel it only where it is highly possible to justify the disadvantage of the party in need of public interest after comparing and comparing the necessity of public interest to be cancelled, the right to obtain trust and the infringement of the stability in legal life, etc. to be suffered by the party due to such cancellation, and where it is highly sufficient to justify the disadvantage of the party in need of public interest. However, if the defect in the beneficial administrative disposition is due to the act of application by concealment or other fraudulent methods, the party is also expected to have known that the benefit in the disposition was illegally acquired, and even if it did not consider it, it does not constitute an abuse of discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006, etc.).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1 obtained the transfer/acquisition of the above transportation business from the competent authority on August 10, 2006 by submitting a false driver's experience certificate, etc. which was forged to the competent authority while taking over the above transportation business from the non-party 2 of the former transferor, and the plaintiff obtained the transfer/acquisition of the above transportation business from the transferor non-party 1 and obtained the approval of the transfer/acquisition of the above transportation business from the competent authority on October 2, 2007.

In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the transfer and transferee of the private taxi transport business against Nonparty 1 is due to the act of filing an application by fraudulent means, such as submitting a certificate of driving career forged by Nonparty 1, the Defendant may revoke the license of the private taxi transport business against Nonparty 1 without any separate legal basis. Furthermore, the Plaintiff who succeeded to Nonparty 1’s status may also revoke the private taxi transport business license.

On the other hand, the court below concluded that the disposition was unlawful solely on the ground that there was no provision on the grounds for cancellation under the law at the time of the disposition of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on cancellation of defective dispositions, and the ground for appeal pointing this out has

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)