Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Revocation of a taxi qualification after the probation period ends
Supreme Court, May 10, 2019, 2018Du58769 (judgment)
Case name: 개인택시운송사업면허취소처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the holder of a private taxi transport business operator qualification was convicted of rape causing injury under Articles 301 and 297 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to imprisonment with a suspended sentence, was that a ground requiring revocation of the qualification under Article 87(1)(iii) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, even though the probation period had already ended when the order was made?
Holding
It was. Article 24(4)(ii) of the Passenger Transport Service Act is an aggravated ground for disqualification compared with Article 24(3), but it brings the end of the disqualification forward to the day the probation period ends; Article 87(1)(iii) turns such a ground into a ground for revocation without requiring it to persist until the administrative order, so 'become subject to Article 24(3) or (4)' means that the reason has occurred. Rape causing injury is a specified violent crime listed in Article 2(1)(iii) of the Special Act on the Punishment of Specified Violent Crimes, so a person given a suspended sentence for it is subject to revocation, and this reading accords with the legislative purpose and with the stricter criteria the Act sets for the private taxi qualification.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호는 이러한 자격취득결격사유에 해당하게 되는 경우를 자격취소사유로 규정하고 있을 뿐, 행정청의 운전자격취소처분 당시까지 자격취득결격사유가 유지되고 있을 것을 요건으로 규정하고 있지 않다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 87 (1) 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act merely provides, as a ground for revocation of qualification, the case of falling under such a ground for disqualification from acquiring qualification, and does not require that the ground for disqualification continue to exist until the time of the administrative authority's disposition revoking the driver qualification.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘제24조 제3항 또는 제4항에 해당하게 된 경우’는 ‘제24조 제3항 또는 제4항의 사유가 발생한 사실이 있는 경우’를 의미한다고 보는 것이 문언에 따른 자연스러운 해석이다.
Unofficial English translation
It is a natural interpretation according to the text to regard 'the case of falling under Article 24 (3) or (4)' as meaning 'the case where the fact of a ground under Article 24 (3) or (4) has occurred'.
Factors
- 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1항 각호에 따른 죄를 범하여 금고 이상의 형의 집행유예를 선고받고 집행유예기간 중에 있는 사람에 해당하게 된 경우
- 형법 제301조, 제297조에 따른 강간치상죄가 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1항 제3호에 해당하는 특정강력범죄로 규정되어 있는 이상
- 행정청의 운전자격취소처분 당시까지 자격취득결격사유가 유지되고 있을 것을 요건으로 규정하고 있지 않다
- 자격취득결격의 종기를 집행유예 기간 종료일로 완화하는 의미를 가지고 있다
- 개인택시운송사업 운수자격의 취득에 있어 다른 여객자동차운송사업 운수자격보다 강화된 기준을 요구하는 여객자동차 운수사업법의 체계에 비추어 보아도 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
• Where a person has become one who has committed a crime under any of the subparagraphs of Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes and has been sentenced to a suspension of execution of a sentence of imprisonment or heavier punishment and is within the probation period
• Given that the crime of rape causing injury under Articles 301 and 297 of the Criminal Act is provided as a specific violent crime falling under Article 2 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes
• It does not require that the ground for disqualification from acquiring qualification continue to exist until the time of the administrative authority's disposition revoking the driver qualification
• It has the meaning of relaxing the end date of disqualification from acquiring qualification to the date of expiration of the probation period
• It is also reasonable in view of the system of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which requires a stricter standard for acquiring the transport qualification for an individual taxi transport business than for other passenger transport business qualifications
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 4. 26. 선고 2016두46175 판결(공2017상, 1125)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du46175 decided April 26, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 1125)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2017. 4. 26. 선고 2016두46175 판결(공2017상, 1125)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does a later rehabilitation of the driver, or any time limit on exercising the power to revoke, bar an order made long after the probation period ended?
A later decision construing the effect of rehabilitation or a statutory time limit on revocation would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 24(4) or Article 87(1)(iii) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, or to the list of offences in Article 2(1) of the Special Act on the Punishment of Specified Violent Crimes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does a later rehabilitation of the driver, or any time limit on exercising the power to revoke, bar an order made long after the probation period ended?” vs Independent “Would a later reversal of the criminal conviction eliminate the ground for revoking the driver's qualification?”
The primary points to later rehabilitation or any time limit on revocation power, while the independent points to whether a later reversal of the criminal conviction would remove the revocation ground.
여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호는 이러한 자격취득결격사유에 해당하게 되는 경우를 자격취소사유로 규정하고 있을 뿐, 행정청의 운전자격취소처분 당시까지 자격취득결격사유가 유지되고 있을 것을 요건으로 규정하고 있지 않다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 12 September 2018 (2018Nu48108), held the revocation lawful. It treated the plaintiff's conviction for rape causing injury, under which he had been sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment suspended for three years, as a ground for revocation under Article 87(1)(iii), even though the probation period had run out before the defendant made the order.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Article 87(1)(iii) makes a ground for disqualification in acquiring the qualification a ground for revocation, and does not require the disqualification to remain in force when the administrative order is made, so the court below had not misread the meaning of 'become subject to Article 24(3) or (4)'. It also rejected the plaintiff's separate contention that rape causing injury was not a specified violent crime, since Article 301 and Article 297 of the Criminal Act are covered by Article 2(1)(iii) of the Special Act, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A qualification held by a person whose crime is not one of the offences enumerated in the items of Article 2(1) of the Special Act on the Punishment of Specified Violent Crimes, since the Court relied on rape causing injury being listed in item (iii).
- An order of revocation whose ground is not a disqualification ground under Article 24(3) or (4) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, since Article 87(1)(iii) refers only to those provisions.
- A case in which the probation period has not yet ended, where the holder still falls within the disqualification ground and the question of its expiry does not arise.
Record verification notes
Set out the sentence and the probation period on the face of the criminal judgment, the date of the revocation order, and the date the qualification was acquired, since the Act distinguishes grounds for acquiring the qualification from grounds for revoking it. Then match the offence of conviction against the items of Article 2(1) of the Special Act, and confirm that the order was made by the minister of land, infrastructure and transport or by a mayor, governor, or delegated mayor, county magistrate or district office head under Article 87(1) and Article 75 of the Act and Article 16(1) and Article 37(2)(xv)-2 of its Enforcement Decree.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 강간치상죄를 범하여 징역형의 집행유예를 선고받은 경우, 개인택시운송사업 운전자격을 취소하여야 하는 죄를 범한 경우에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 ‘제24조 제3항 또는 제4항에 해당하게 된 경우’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the case where a person has been sentenced to a suspension of execution of a sentence of imprisonment for committing the crime of rape causing injury falls under the case of having committed a crime for which the driver qualification for an individual taxi transport business must be revoked (affirmative) [2] Meaning of 'the case of falling under Article 24 (3) or (4)' provided in Article 87 (1) 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호, 제24조 제4항 제2호, 제1호 (가)목, 제3항 제1호 (가)목, 제75조 제2항, 제1항, 여객자동차 운수사업법 시행령 제16조 제1항, 제37조 제2항 제15호의2에 따르면, 국토교통부장관 또는 시·도지사와 그로부터 위임을 받은 시장·군수 또는 구청장은 개인택시운송사업의 운전자격을 취득한 사람이 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1항 각호에 따른 죄를 범하여 금고 이상의 형의 집행유예를 선고받고 집행유예기간 중에 있는 사람에 해당하게 된 경우 자격을 취소하여야 한다. 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법은 기본적 윤리와 사회질서를 침해하는 특정강력범죄에 대한 처벌과 절차에 관한 특례를 규정하는 법률로서, 제2조 제1항 각호에서 형법, 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법, 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 등에서 규정한 죄 중 특정강력범죄를 열거하고 있다. 형법 제301조, 제297조에 따른 강간치상죄가 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1항 제3호에 해당하는 특정강력범죄로 규정되어 있는 이상, 강간치상죄를 범하여 징역형의 집행유예를 선고받은 사람은 개인택시운송사업 운전자격을 취소하여야 하는 죄를 범한 경우에 해당한다. [2] 개인택시운송사업의 운전자격을 취득하려는 사람이 특정강력범죄를 범하여 집행유예를 선고받고 집행유예 기간 중인 경우에는 운전자격을 취득할 수 없다고 규정한 여객자동차 운수사업법 제24조 제4항 제2호는, 같은 조 제3항보다 강화된 자격취득결격사유로 특정강력범죄를 범하여 금고 이상의 형의 집행유예를 선고받은 경우를 규정하는 한편 자격취득결격의 종기를 집행유예 기간 종료일로 완화하는 의미를 가지고 있다. 여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호는 이러한 자격취득결격사유에 해당하게 되는 경우를 자격취소사유로 규정하고 있을 뿐, 행정청의 운전자격취소처분 당시까지 자격취득결격사유가 유지되고 있을 것을 요건으로 규정하고 있지 않다. 따라서 여객자동차 운수사업법 제87조 제1항 제3호에서 정하고 있는 ‘제24조 제3항 또는 제4항에 해당하게 된 경우’는 ‘제24조 제3항 또는 제4항의 사유가 발생한 사실이 있는 경우’를 의미한다고 보는 것이 문언에 따른 자연스러운 해석이다. 이와 달리 행정청이 운전자격취소처분을 할 당시까지 자격취득결격사유가 유지되어야 한다고 보는 것은 위 조항의 문언에 합치하지 않는다. 이러한 해석은 특정강력범죄를 범하여 실형 혹은 금고 이상의 형의 집행유예를 선고받은 경우 개인택시운송사업의 운수자격 역시 취소하여야 국민의 생명과 신체의 안전을 보장하고 범죄로부터 사회를 지킬 수 있다는 입법 목적과도 부합하고, 개인택시운송사업 운수자격의 취득에 있어 다른 여객자동차운송사업 운수자격보다 강화된 기준을 요구하는 여객자동차 운수사업법의 체계에 비추어 보아도 타당하다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 여객자동차 운수사업법 제24조 제3항 제1호 (가)목, 제4항 제1호 (가)목, 제2호, 제87조 제1항 제3호, 여객자동차 운수사업법 시행령 제16조 제1항, 특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1항 제3호, 형법 제297조, 제301조 [2] 여객자동차 운수사업법 제24조 제3항, 제4항 제2호, 제87조 제1항 제3호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger