[차량면허취소처분취소][공1989.2.1.(841),202]
(a) Criteria for determining whether it is a serious traffic accident provided for in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;
(b) The case holding that it constitutes a serious traffic accident;
(c) Legal nature of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31, etc. of the Automobile Transport Business Act;
D. Determination criteria of abuse of discretion on the revocation of the license of automobile transportation business
A. Whether such a traffic accident is a serious traffic accident as provided in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined by comprehensively examining the circumstances of the traffic accident, damage situations, degree of negligence between the driver and the victim, impact on the general society, etc., and whether such a traffic accident exceeds the scope of the traffic accident that may normally occur.
(b) The case that it falls under a serious traffic accident provided in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; and
C. The rules on the disposition, etc. of cancellation, etc. of a business license under the provisions of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act are merely those with the nature and contents of the regulations stipulated in the business process standards and disposition rules within the administrative agency concerning cancellation, etc. of a business license, and thus, it has no effect to externally bind the people
D. The criteria for determining whether to abuse discretionary power with respect to the revocation of a license for a motor vehicle transport business under Article 31 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act shall be deemed to have exceeded the limits of discretionary power in cases where the disadvantage suffered by the other party due to the disposition, such as the purpose and revocation of license, etc., of public interest to be achieved under the said Article, is compared and compared to the disadvantage suffered by the other
(d)Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu784 delivered on January 21, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.
The issue of whether it is a serious traffic accident provided for in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined by comprehensively examining the situation of the traffic accident, the degree of negligence between the driver and the victim, and whether it is a serious traffic accident beyond the scope of ordinary traffic accident. According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the non-party 1, who is a driver of the plaintiff company, shall open the bus 176 (hereinafter referred to as the "accident") in front and in front of the non-party 2, who is not a driver of the plaintiff 1, and the non-party 1, who is a driver of the non-party 2, who is not a driver of the non-party 3, and who is not a driver of the non-party 1, who is not a driver of the non-party 4, the number of the non-party 1, who is a driver of the non-party 2, the number of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who is operating the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3,
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.
The rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a license for an automobile transport business under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act are merely those that stipulate the business process standards and disposition procedures in the administrative agency with regard to the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a license for an automobile transport business, and therefore have no effect to externally bind the people and the court. Thus, the determination of whether the disposition of cancellation of the license of this case under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is unlawful or not. Thus, the criteria for determining abuse of discretionary power are the same as the lawsuit, and the judgment of abuse of discretionary power is compared and compared to the disposition of the public interest purpose and cancellation, etc. of the license of this case, the disadvantage suffered by the other party is the disposition, which is the disposition of the above Act, to be suffered by the other party rather than the necessity of public interest. Thus, the judgment of abuse of discretionary power is deemed to have exceeded the limits of discretionary power. Thus, as seen above, it can be seen that the plaintiff company's disposition of cancellation of the license of this case is unreasonable by comparing the causes and time of the accident, lack of number, the number of driving.
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 on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)