[자동차운전면허취소처분취소][공1991.4.15.(894),1102]
The validity of the administrative disposition standards for driver's license under attached Table 16 of attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act
The standards for administrative disposition of driver's license provided for in the attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which is established by the provisions of Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, have no effect on externally binding the court or the people because the nature and contents of the provisions are nothing more than those of the administrative agency's internal administrative rules concerning the cancellation of driver's license.
Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, attached Table 16
Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055 Decided November 24, 1989 (Gong1990,156) 90Nu1517 Decided November 13, 1990 (Gong191,110)
Plaintiff
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu5506 delivered on October 10, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is established by the provision of Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, are merely that the nature and contents of the provision are stipulated by administrative agency's internal business regulations concerning the disposition of revocation of driver's license, and therefore the court or citizens are not bound by the court or citizens (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu4055, Nov. 24, 1989; 90Nu1517, Nov. 13, 1990).
The judgment below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.
In the same purport, the court below's decision that the revocation of the plaintiff's driver's license on the ground of drinking driving violates the principle of profit and bridge because the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff is much greater than the realization of the public interest to be secured by the Road Traffic Act, taking into account the circumstances recognized in the judgment below, and therefore, it is acceptable to have judged that the driver's license was revoked, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of discretion, as
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)