[2] Whether the disposition of revocation of driver's license on the ground of violation of the disposition of suspension of use under the Automobile Transport Business Act is illegal (affirmative)

[2] Article 78 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995) provides that "when a person violates this Act and any order or disposition issued or taken to ensure the safe and smooth flow of road traffic pursuant to this Act" in subparagraph 10 of the same Article, the term "this Act" means the Road Traffic Act. Thus, it is clear that the term "this Act" means the Road Traffic Act, and ultimately, the revocation of a driver's license on the ground that it violates the suspension of use under the Automobile Transport Business Act is illegal based on legal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above disposition of suspension of traffic by the plaintiff 7 U.S. 4843 of the Road Traffic Act was unlawful on Nov. 16, 193 because the above disposition of suspension of traffic was carried out by the defendant's owner at least 7 U.S. 1 of the Road Traffic Act and the above disposition of suspension of traffic pursuant to Article 59 of the Road Traffic Act was conducted on Nov. 20, 193 to secure the safety and safe operation of the above truck for 6 months from May 194. 7 of the Road Traffic Act, and the above disposition of suspension of traffic by the defendant's 7 U.S. 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which was not based on the provision of the Road Traffic Act No. 8 of the Road Traffic Act, which was enacted on Oct. 16, 1994 to ensure the safety and smooth operation of the motor vehicle by the defendant 7 of the above disposition of suspension of traffic pursuant to the provision of the Road Traffic Act [the above disposition of suspension No. 8 of driver's.

2. However, in handling affairs such as the revocation of a driver's license and the suspension of validity of a driver's license, the criteria for the administrative disposition of the driver's license are merely an internal guidelines of the administrative agency that provides detailed matters such as the criteria and methods, and it does not externally bind the people or the court. Thus, the legality of the revocation of the driver's license of this case should not be determined based on whether the criteria for the administrative disposition of the above driver's license are based on higher Acts and subordinate statutes, but rather according to the contents and purport of the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu944 delivered on May 24, 198). Therefore, the above criteria for the administrative disposition of the driver's license of this case cannot be readily concluded that the revocation of the driver's license of this case is unlawful on the ground that

However, Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995) provides that the revocation of a driver's license shall be made by the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency according to the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs when the person who has obtained the driver's license falls under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 10 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "When the person who has obtained the driver's license violates any order or disposition issued or taken to ensure the safety and smooth flow of road traffic pursuant to this Act and this Act", it is clear that "this Act" refers to the Road Traffic Act, and eventually, the revocation of the driver's license of this case on the ground that the plaintiff violated the suspension of use under the Automobile Transport Business Act. Although it was inappropriate in the reasoning of the judgment below, the conclusion of the judgment below that the revocation of

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)