[운행정지처분취소][집39(3)특,535;공1991.9.1.(903),2170]
Whether Article 9(2) of the Rules on the Disposition of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is effective (affirmative)
According to Articles 32(1), 31(1) and (2), 75(1)4, and 31(2) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 4190 of Dec. 30, 1989), and Article 9(1) of the Rules on the Disposition of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under the delegation of Article 31(2) of the same Act, when the other party fails to carry out the obligation to stop the operation, which is the initial administrative disposition, the administrative agency may impose a fine for negligence pursuant to Article 75(1)4 of the same Act, and when the other party fails to carry out the obligation to keep the vehicle inspection certificate and the registration number list, it shall be deemed that the delegation of Article 32(1)1 of the same Act is effective within the number of days of original disposition within the period of six months pursuant to Article 31(1)1 of the same Act. Thus, it shall be deemed that Article 31(2)1 of the same Act is effective.
Article 9(1) and (2) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 4190 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 31(1) and (2), Article 32(1), and Article 75(1)4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 4190 of Dec. 30, 198), Article 9(1) and (2) of the Rules on the Disposition of Impeachment, etc
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1
[Judgment of the court below]
Gwangju High Court Decision 190Da171 delivered on July 24, 1990
The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
As to the Grounds of Appeal
Article 32 (1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 4190 of Dec. 30, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) which was in force by the defendant against the plaintiff's vehicle inspection, provides that "if the Minister of Construction and Transportation orders the suspension of business pursuant to the provisions of Article 31, he may return the registration pursuant to the Automobile Management Act to the Do governor and remove the registration number tickets and their seals from the Do governor, and Article 31 (1) of the same Act provides that "if the automobile transport business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of business for a specified period of not more than 6 months or revoke all or part of the license or registration, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall order the return of the previous registration number tickets under the provisions of Article 31 (1) of the same Act and Article 32 (2) of the same Act to the head of the competent police agency for a violation of the provisions of Article 9 (1) of the same Act, and the above provision provides that "the person shall be sentenced to a fine for negligence not more than 9
Unlike this opinion, the court below held that the disposition under Article 9 (2) of the Rules of this case was an administrative punishment, which was enacted without the basis of law, and this provision is interpreted as null and void, and that the disposition of this case was unlawful ex officio without judging the plaintiff's assertion that the suspension of operation of this case is abuse of discretionary power. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of Article 9 (2) of the Rules of this case by erroneous interpretation of law, and the above illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)