[2] In a case where a chartered bus violates the exclusive bus lanes, whether a penalty surcharge may be imposed on the chartered bus transportation business entity (affirmative)

[2] Articles 23, 31(1)1, and 31-2(1) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 10(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15817 of Jun. 24, 1998), Article 2(3) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Automobile Transport Business Regulations (wholly amended by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 144 of Jul. 21, 1998), Article 13-2(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14694 of Jul. 14, 199), and Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Automobile Transport Business Act, order of a transport business operator who violated the former Passenger Transport Service Act can not be ordered to impose a penalty under [Attachment 1(3]

Article 69 (1) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "the Minister of Construction and Transportation may delegate part of his authority prescribed by this Act to the Do governor or the head of the agency affiliated with him under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree", and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the Do governor may re-endorse part of the authority delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under paragraph (1) to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation." Thus, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (the plaintiff claims that the Minister of Construction and Transportation can delegate his authority only to the Do governor, but Article 31-2 (6) of the Act includes the Do governor under the provision of Article 69 of the Act) is possible after obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and it is possible that the head of the Gu has the authority to re-endorse a penalty by the head of the Gu under the Act.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant to be re-entrusted with authority based on the provisions of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority, is erroneous, but the conclusion that the defendant was a legitimate person to impose penalty surcharges under the law is justifiable. The ground of appeal No.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 31(1)1 and Article 31-2(1) of the Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may impose a penalty surcharge under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree when a trucking business operator violates an order under the Act, and Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Attachment Table 1”) provides that a penalty surcharge shall not be imposed for the violation of the order issued by a trucking business operator for the safe and orderly transportation of buses and for the improvement of service order and for the convenience of passengers or shippers. Article 23 of the Act provides that a penalty surcharge shall not be imposed for the violation of Article 2(3) [Attachment Table 1] 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 3(1) [Attachment 1] 10 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Attachment 1] 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 3(2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act before the enforcement of the Act.

In the same purport, the court below determined that the act of the chartered bus belonging to the plaintiffs in violation of the exclusive bus lanes constitutes a violation of the order under the law and thus is subject to the penalty surcharge, and the disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for the disposition. The grounds for appeal on this point

3. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is proper that the court below determined that each of the provisions of Article 31 (1) 1 of the Act and subparagraph 10 (c) of the Enforcement Decree (Attached Table 1) of the attached Table 1) does not fall under the "order" under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Act and subparagraph 10 (c) of the attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Decree, but that Article 23 of the Act, which is not the ground for delegation of the transportation rules [Attachment Table 1], is limited to the scope of delegation, and therefore does not fall under the comprehensive delegation. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)