In case where a person holding a license for special automobile transport business and general area trucking transport business transfers one of the licenses after July 24, 1987, whether a disposition of refusal to grant authorization on the ground that two licenses have been integrated (negative)

Article 4 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act amended as of July 24, 1987 provides that a person who is engaged in towing and towed automobile transport business among those who previously held a license for special automobile transport business shall be deemed to have obtained a license for general area trucking transport business; in the case of those who previously held a license for special automobile transport business and a two business licenses for general area trucking transport business, the above two business licenses shall not be construed to be integrated into one general area trucking transport business under the above provision; and in the case of those who previously held a two business licenses for special area trucking transport business, the two same business licenses shall exist until the two business licenses are consolidated into one business licenses. Thus, if the two business licenses are transferred to others and the two business licenses are applied for the transfer and acquisition of them, it is unlawful for the competent authorities to refuse the above two business licenses under the premise that the two same business licenses were integrated into one business licenses.

Article 28 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 4 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act ( July 24, 1987)

Attorney Kang Jong-tae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu268 delivered on October 6, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the plaintiff 2's 1's 1's 1's 2's 2's 2's 2's 2's 1's 2's 1's 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1'''''''''''''''''''''''' 2'''''''''' 1''''''''''''''''' 2'''''''''''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2''''''''''''''''''2''''''''''''2''''''2''''''''''2''''''''''''2'''''2'''''''''''''''''2''''1''''''2''''''''''''''2'' ' ''''''''.

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 on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)