[과징금부과처분취소][공1995.12.15.(1006),3936]
Whether a penalty surcharge may be imposed on a private taxi transport business entity or a transport employee in violation of Article 33-7(3) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, where the private taxi transport business entity or transport employee fails to complete the prescribed training
Considering the legislative intent of Article 33-7 (1) and (3) of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the initial provisions of the above Article are expected to vary between automobile transport business operators and their transport employees, and the legislative situation, if a private taxi transport business operator fails to take measures necessary to employ substitute drivers to complete education, it constitutes a violation of Article 33-7 (3) of the same Act and thus, Article 31-2 (1) and Article 31 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1451 of Jan. 21, 1995) [Attachment Table 1] 24 of the same Act, if a private taxi transport business operator and his transport employees fail to complete education, it shall be deemed that the private taxi transport business operator violates Article 3-4 (1) and (3) of the same Act and Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1451 of Jan. 21, 1995).
Articles 31(1)1, 31-2(1), 33-4, and 33-7(1)3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 24, and 6-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14511 of January 21, 1995); Article 30-10(1) [Attachment Table 3-3] 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 9 of March 2, 1995)
Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10945 Delivered on November 10, 1995
Plaintiff 1 and 13 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Head of the Daegu Metropolitan City North Korean Office
Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu5114 delivered on June 16, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
Article 33-7 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that transport employees shall undergo education under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Paragraph (3) of this Article provides that transport employees shall take measures necessary for the completion of education pursuant to paragraph (1). Considering the legislative intent of the above provision and the legislative intent of the above provision, where each of the above provision originally plans a difference between an automobile transport business operator and his transport employees, and where a private taxi transport business operator hires a substitute driver and fails to take measures necessary for the completion of education, the private taxi transport business operator shall be subject to Article 33-7 (3) of the Act and Article 31-2 (1) 1 of the Act and Article 3 (1) [Attachment 1] (Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 3 (1) [Attachment 3] (Article 31-7 (1) of the Act and Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, separate from the case of violation of Article 14511 of the Act, Article 30-1 of the Act.
The judgment below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)