[자동차운전면허취소처분취소][공1991.1.1.(887),110]
Whether the standards for administrative disposition of driver's license in attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are applicable (negative
The criteria for the administrative disposition of driver's license provided for in attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act shall not be binding on the court or citizens, because the nature and contents of the provisions provide the administrative rules concerning the revocation of driver's license.
Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act and attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Jeon-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu5827 delivered on July 27, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If the circumstance and degree of the plaintiff's driver's license are identical to those recognized by the court below, the decision of the court below that the defendant's revocation of the plaintiff's driver's license is beyond the scope of discretion is acceptable.
The criteria for the administrative disposition of driver's license provided in attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act as provided in Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are not effective because the nature and contents of the provision provide the administrative agency with the administrative rules concerning the revocation disposition of driver's license, and the court below's decision is just, and it cannot be said that there is no binding effect on the court or the people. Therefore, there is no argument on the contrary.
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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)