In a case where a private taxi transportation business license is transferred to a third party without authorization from the competent authority within five years from the date of the license, whether the revocation of the license constitutes abuse of discretionary power (negative)

If a private taxi transportation business operator transferred a license to a third party without obtaining authorization from the competent authorities before five years elapse from the date of obtaining the license, the competent authorities regard the said business operator as a person who violated Article 28 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 3(2)1 of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation of Business License under Article 31 of the said Act and Article 3(2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, it is legitimate to revoke the said license and cannot be deemed to have abused the discretionary authority.

Article 3 of the Regulations on the Cancellation, etc. of Business License in accordance with the provisions of Articles 28, 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Attorney Cho Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10352 Decided September 5, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The court below recognized that the plaintiff transferred the automobile transport business license to a third party without obtaining authorization from the competent authority before five years have passed since the date of obtaining the personal taxi transport business license, and determined that the defendant's cancellation of the personal taxi transport business license against the plaintiff is legitimate and that the defendant cannot be viewed as abuse of discretionary authority in accordance with the attached Table 1 of Article 3 (2) of the Rules on the Disposition of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and Article 3 (2) of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the same Act and Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, etc.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)