[자동차면허취소처분취소][공1983.10.1.(713),1349]
Whether the frequency of traffic accidents exceeds a certain index constitutes a ground for suspension of business or revocation of license under Article 31 subparagraph 1(b)(3) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act.
Article 680 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s Directives (Guidelines for Disposition on Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act) provides that the number of traffic accidents caused by a vehicle owned by a vehicle transport business entity exceeds a certain index as stipulated in the above Directives, and it cannot be readily concluded that an act contrary to the provisions of subparagraph 1(b)3 of Article 31 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981) is a case where an act contrary to the provisions of subparagraph 1(b) of Article 31 of the same Act is committed.
Articles 31 subparag. 1 and 31 subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513 of Dec. 31, 1981) (amended by Act No. 3513 of Dec. 31, 1981)
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu413 decided Feb. 22, 1983; 82Nu323 decided May 24, 1983; 82Nu322 decided Jul. 26, 1983 (Dong)
Plaintiff
Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City
Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu27 delivered on May 25, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981) which was in force at the time of the cancellation of the license of this case, when a vehicle transport operator violates this Act or an order, disposition, license, permission or authorization under this Act, or committed an act contrary to public welfare (Article 3(1)1), the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of business for a specified period of not more than six months, or cancel all or part of the license. Thus, the No. 680 (Guidelines on Disposition of Article 31, etc. of the Automobile Transport Business Act) of the No. 680 (Guidelines on Disposition of Article 31 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act) of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s instruction on the criteria for administrative affairs, and the number of traffic accidents caused by a vehicle transport operator exceeds a certain index as set forth in the above order, it cannot be concluded that the reason alone does not constitute an act contrary to the provisions of Article 31 subparag. 1(b)3) of the Automobile Transport Business Act.
In the same purport, the judgment below cannot be deemed to fall under Article 31 subparagraph 1 (b) Item 3 merely with the mere fact that a traffic accident occurred frequently, and there is no evidence to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's violation of public welfare matters or due to a violation of specific rules stipulated in the transportation rules, such as automobile transportation business, etc., even by the defendant's prior proof, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff caused an accident due to the plaintiff's violation of the conditions attached to the order or permission under the same Act, and there is no evidence to deem that the cancellation disposition of the license of this case is unlawful, and there is no error of law such as a misapprehension of legal principles. Furthermore, as long as the above action of the court below was just, even if it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below as to the validity of the small transportation guide which the court below decided, it cannot be deemed to affect the conclusion of the judgment
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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)