(a) The purport of “the prohibition of the use of name” under Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the revocation of a taxi business license equivalent to twice the number of vehicles transferred by a general taxi transport business entity to his/her affiliated taxi engineers is not a deviation or abuse of discretionary power;

A. The purport of the provision of Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is to prohibit a person who has obtained a license for automobile transport business from running the transport business under the name of another person, because the Automobile Transport Business Act is able to actually operate the transport business without meeting the license requirements in light of the public nature of the automobile transport business and it is possible to obtain a license only for a person who satisfies certain requirements, and even when entrusting or transferring the automobile transport business, it is likely to disturb the order of the automobile transport business by nullifying the legal provisions that require the license or authorization from the competent authorities.

(b) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the revocation of a taxi business license equivalent to twice the number of vehicles transferred by a general taxi transport business entity to his/her affiliated taxi engineers is not a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

(b)Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu373 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990,544) 91Nu12967 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992,2685) 92Nu3793 delivered on September 222, 1992 (Gong1992,3017) 94Nu1708 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong194Sang,1521)

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu18572 delivered on January 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if a person who has obtained a license for automobile transport business under the above provision of Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act allows another person to carry on the automobile transport business under his name without satisfying the licensing requirements which consider the public nature of the automobile transport business, and it is likely to disturb the order of the automobile transport business by nullifying the legal provisions which require the permission or authorization of the competent authority even when entrusting or transferring the automobile transport business, the court below's rejection of the above provision of the above provision of Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is just and there is no violation of the law by allowing the plaintiff to carry on the automobile transport business under the above provision of 0,00 won or 17,00,000 won or 18,000 won as well as 10,000 won as well as 10,000 won as well as 20,000 won as well as 1,000,000 won as well as 20,000 won as well as 1,00.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion of deviation from discretionary power, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case cannot be deemed as significantly deviating from or abusing discretionary power in light of the Plaintiff’s public interest and legal order. In light of all the circumstances, such as the circumstance, method, and consequence of the Plaintiff’s violation of this case’s violation acknowledged on the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of discretionary power.

This paper can not be accepted.

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)