B. The rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, etc. have the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees under the direction of exercising their authority, and cannot be deemed to have the nature of legal orders. Thus, even if the disposition of cancellation, etc. of automobile transport business license violates the above rules, it cannot be said that the disposition is legitimate because it does not cause any illegality, nor is it in conformity with the standards set forth in the above rules. The legality of the disposition shall be determined not according to the above rules, but according to whether

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may cancel the license in whole or in part when a vehicle transport business operator causes many casualties" under subparagraph 5 of the same Article. The issue of whether a vehicle transport business operator constitutes a "serious traffic accident" refers to the degree of fault of a person causing a traffic accident, negligence of a victim, circumstances of an accident, damage situations, influence on the general society, etc., and determine whether such a traffic accident can be deemed a serious traffic accident, not a traffic accident that may normally occur. Further, the rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under the above Act have the nature of administrative order within the administrative organization issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation with guidelines on the exercise of his authority and authority, and it cannot be deemed that a disposition such as cancellation, etc. of a business license violates the above rules, and thus it cannot be said that the disposition is legitimate without being in violation of the above rules, and therefore, it shall be determined in accordance with the purport of the provisions of the Automobile Transport Business Act and its precedents.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that, at around 22:30 on September 27, 1985, Nonparty 1, a driver of the Plaintiff Company, driving a bus owned by the Plaintiff Company, and driving the Plaintiff Company at around 30 kilometers in speed 50 kilometers per hour prior to the Seo-gu Maduk-gu Maduk-gu Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, that, according to the behind the vehicle behind it, the accident occurred in the second line, and then at least 30 meters per hour after the victim Lee Jae-jin (the age 11) was aboard the same name country (the age 9), the victim Lee Jin-jin (the age 11) was able to take the same direction dog, and that, even if he believed it to go on, he did not reach the above crosswalk, the court below concluded that the Plaintiff did not have any serious traffic accident caused the death of the victim, and that he did not have any negligence after the accident, and that the Plaintiff did not come to the above 3 meters after the accident.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)