A. Nature of automobile transport service license and discretion of administrative agencies

(b) The case holding that the private taxi transport business license criteria, which excludes drivers of the taxi companies that transport only usfk, etc. from the scope of application of class 1 of each priority, constitute deviation from discretionary authority;

A. A license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing specific rights to a specific person, and unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, and the establishment of the standards necessary for the license also belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes. However, even in this case, if the established method of priority determination or the established standards lose an objective rationality, it is unlawful to determine the license in accordance with such method of priority

(b) The case holding that it is objectively reasonable to exclude drivers belonging to taxi companies that have obtained a license to engage in business only for the U.S. military, military service, and their families, etc. from subparagraph 1 of each order among the criteria for the license of private taxi transportation business, and that the provision of the proviso to the criteria for the license of private taxi transportation business provided by the Do Governor that the method of determining freight or the conditions of treatment are different from that of ordinary taxi transportation business cannot be a reasonable ground for discriminatory treatment, and that the proviso to the criteria for the license of private taxi transportation business provided by the Do Governor excluded the limited taxi from subparagraph 1 of each order

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15(11) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12257 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989,703) 89Nu3984 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong1990,272) 90Nu2925 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong190,1805)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6820 delivered on December 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The license for automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is an act of establishing a specific right, and unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, and the establishment of the standards necessary for the license also belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, unless otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes. However, in this case, if the established method of priority decision or criteria lose an objective rationality, it is reasonable objectively and objectively, and if the established method of priority decision or criteria lose an objective rationality, it is unlawful to determine the license accordingly. (See Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3984 delivered on December 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2604 delivered on May 14, 199).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court classified the first, second, and third order based on the type of vehicles for business, such as each taxi, and driving experience, according to the provisions of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which the Governor of Gyeonggi-do does not have a duty of care in accordance with the prescribed criteria, and determined that the Plaintiffs were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on August 25, 1989, based on the following reasons: (a) the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business; and (b) the Plaintiffs were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were not subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were subject to a license for private taxi transport business on the ground that they were not subject to a license for their own service.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of licensing standards for private taxi transportation business or the misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)