Whether it is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable to give more favorable treatment to the driver's experience than the driver's experience of another type of taxi when granting the driver's license for private taxi transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act (negative)

Article 5 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9463 Decided November 12, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17987 Decided June 1, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11099 Decided July 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1327)

Plaintiff

Original City Mayor (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu14847 decided November 6, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The license of private taxi transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act is the discretionary act of an administrative agency that grants a specific person the right or interest and sets necessary standards for license within the scope of the above Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof also belong to the discretion of an administrative agency. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the standard established is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the intention of an administrative agency should be respected as far as possible. In granting a license of private taxi transport business, considering the fact that an administrative agency can be more useful for private taxi transport service than that of other types of vehicles such as buses, it cannot be objectively reasonable or unreasonable to give a certain preferential treatment to private taxi transport service in light of the fact that the standard established is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du9463, Nov. 12, 2004; 2006Du17987, Jun. 1, 2007).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds that it is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable to increase the number of taxis by giving more favorable treatment to the defendant's taxi driver's career than that of bus driver's operation, or by cutting off the number of taxis below the decimal point, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary power as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Therefore,

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)