Article 15 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 741 of July 31, 1982)

Article 15 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 741 of July 31, 1982) shall not apply to the transfer or acquisition of private taxi transport business licensed prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Addenda to the same Enforcement Rule.

Article 15 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act, Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu87 delivered on February 8, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 15 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation No. 741 of July 31, 1982) provides that a person (including a person who has obtained a license) who operates a taxi transport business after obtaining a license of the taxi transport business on the condition that he/she will directly drive the automobile at the time of enforcement of these Rules pursuant to Article 741 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 741) provides that a person who operates a taxi transport business (including a person who has obtained a license) may transfer the passenger taxi transport business or general area truck transport business to another person pursuant to the previous provision, and it is apparent that Article 15 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act cannot be applied to the transfer or acquisition of the private taxi transport business of this case which was licensed prior to its enforcement. Thus, the decision of the court below that the Defendant revoked the above disposition as unlawful since it violated Article 15 (5) 1.

Before the provision of Article 15 (5) 1 of the above Enforcement Rule was newly established, there was a guidelines for handling restrictions on the transfer and acquisition of private taxi transport business (public notice of the guidelines for authorization by the chief of traffic department). Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to Article 15 (5) of the above Enforcement Rule provides that a person who operates a business after obtaining a license at the time of the enforcement of the above Rule shall not be able to transfer the transport business to another person without any condition, but shall be able to transfer the transport business in accordance with the previous regulations. Thus, the above guidelines for the transfer and acquisition of the transport business of this case against the plaintiff are contrary to the previous disposal guidelines. The above guidelines for the transfer and acquisition of the transport business of this case constitutes the "previous provision" as stipulated in Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Ministry of Transport and Transportation No. 741. Thus, the court below did not examine whether the disposition of the plaintiff against the transfer and acquisition of the transport business of this case violates the previous disposal guidelines. However, despite the court's exercise of the right to request for explanation, there was no ground for appeal.

In addition, the issue is that the court below erred in finding facts that the disposition to revoke the transportation business license of the non-party, the transferor of the transportation business license of this case, was not notified to the above non-party; however, in light of the records, it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, even though the records were examined. In addition, even if the disposition to revoke the transportation business license of the non-party, the transfer of the transportation business license of this case was established internally, so long as the disposition to revoke the transfer of the transportation business license of this case is established, it is an independent opinion that the judgment of the court below that the disposition to revoke the transfer of the transportation business license of this case was illegal as it constitutes a violation of the laws and regulations on the requirements for revocation, and the judgment of the court below that the disposition to revoke the transfer of the transportation business license of this case was illegal as it constitutes abuse of discretionary power

Therefore, all arguments are groundless, and 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 judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)