[개인택시운송사업면허취소처분취소][공1992.1.1.(911),128]
(a) The legal nature and the binding power on the people and the court of the rules concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (negative);
(b) The case holding that there was no error of deviation from discretionary authority in the revocation of a private taxi transport business license where a person who acquired a private taxi transport business license again lets another person drive on behalf of another person with the knowledge that the disposition of suspending operation was already issued twice
A. Although Article 31(2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Act on the Disposal, etc. of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31, etc. of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act (amended in Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation), the nature and contents of the provision are merely a provision of the administrative rules within the administrative agency, such as the handling standards and disposition procedures for the cancellation, etc. of Business License for Motor Vehicle Transport Business, and thus, they have the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization. Therefore, the above rules cannot be externally
B. The case holding that, in case where the plaintiff who acquired a private taxi transport business license for two times or more after being aware that the suspension of operation was already imposed on the ground of the vicarious driving, caused the plaintiff to drive on behalf of others for about 40 days, the violation of the prohibition of vicarious driving constitutes the ground for revoking the license of private taxi transport business under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and even if the plaintiff maintains his livelihood with his family through his private taxi transport business, it did not err in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority in light of the motive, mode, and period of vicarious driving, etc.
a.b.Article 31(a) of the Automobile Transport Business Act. Article 31 of the Regulations on the Punishment, etc. of Revocation, etc. of Business License (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 905 of Apr. 20, 1989), Articles 1 and 3(b) of the said Act. Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3564 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990,553) 90Nu3546 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990,230) / (b) Supreme Court Decision 83Nu483 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985,172) 89Nu5324 delivered on November 24, 1989 (Gong190,63)
[Judgment of the court below]
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7953 delivered on November 14, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision that the defendant's act of violating the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act is legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the plaintiff's act of violating the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 905 of the Ministry of Transport on April 20, 198). However, since the nature and contents of the provision are merely a provision of administrative rules within the administrative agency such as guidelines for disposition of cancellation of automobile transport business license and disposition procedure, it has the nature of administrative order within the administrative agency's authority guidelines. Thus, the above rules are not sufficient to arrest the administrative agency or employees within the administrative organization and it is not possible to externally detain the citizens or the court. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's act of violating the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act was legitimate, and there was no error of law by 20 days prior to the acquisition of the defendant's personal taxi transport business license of this case from 10 days to 30 days.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)