The meaning of the date of final driving, which is the starting date of the past three years or more as specified by the requirements for issuing licenses for private taxi transportation business;

In Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the date of final driving, which is the initial date of driving experience in the past three years or more, which is stipulated as the requirements for issuing licenses for private taxi transport business, shall not mean the date of final driving prior to the issuance of licenses for private taxi drivers or the date of final driving prior to the date of issuance of licenses for private taxi drivers.

Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Plaintiff

Sung-nam City Law Firm Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu324 delivered on August 18, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that a person who has been engaged in driving a motor vehicle for business in Korea for the last 4 years from the date of application for a license for the last 3 years or longer, who has been engaged in driving without a driver's license for the last 3 years or longer, may be granted a personal taxi transport business license for the last 3 years or longer from the date of application for a license for the last 3 years or longer. Thus, the date of final driving without a driver's license for the last 3 years or longer is not the date of issuance of a license for the last

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff filed an application for a private taxi transport business license, and even if the processing period has exceeded, the plaintiff's failure to perform safety driving prior to the issuance of the license, caused an injury to other person six weeks, and that the plaintiff who paid the above traffic accident does not constitute a person with experience in accidentless driving for the last three years or more counting from the date of the final operator of the above rules. In light of the records, the court below's findings and decision are just and acceptable, and even if the above rules are an administrative order in the form of traffic Ordinance, the disposition excluded from the issuance of private taxi driver's license does not exceed the discretionary power as to the licensing criteria under Article 6 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, which is the mother, cannot be viewed as unlawful.

Ultimately, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the judgment below to the same purport.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)