(b) The case holding that the revocation of a driver's license for an individual taxi driver and a driver's license for an individual taxi transport business is deviating from discretionary authority;

B. The driver's license of this case and the driver's license of private taxi transport business of this case were transferred to the company that had previously worked for private taxi transport business by obtaining a license of private taxi transport business for not less than four years and caused retirement allowances to the company that had previously worked for private taxi transport business, and due to the parking lot of the above taxi that had been set up on the alleyway while drinking in the company's apartment restaurant, the police officer controlled the non-party and tried to confirm the drinking of the above taxi. The driver's license of this case and the driver's license of private taxi transport business of this case were operated about 30 meters in order to gather it. If the driver's license of this case and the driver's license of private taxi transport business are supported by the above private taxi business, the defendant who is the competent administrative

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which is established by Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, are set by the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs. Thus, the court or citizens have no binding effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055 delivered on November 24

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence that the plaintiff had been recognized as having been in accidentless driving for not less than four years, and caused the plaintiff to receive retirement allowances from the non-party to conduct private taxi transport business by acquiring the private taxi and private taxi transport business license from the non-party, and the company that operated the above taxi before driving the above taxi, set up the vehicle on the alleyway, and wn the above taxi's parking lot while drinking in the company's apartment restaurant while drinking in the company's apartment, and the police officer controlled the non-party to check the drinking of the non-party while driving the above taxi in order to gather about 30 meters of the above taxi, and the fact that the plaintiff is driving about 3 million won of the above private taxi with the whole deposit for the above personal taxi business. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant's revocation of the driver's license of this case and private taxi transport business license of this case exceeded the scope of discretion, and thus, the judgment of the court below is without merit.

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)