[자동차관리법위반][공1995.7.15.(996),2433]
Whether the car body painting work falls under the automobile maintenance work subject to the permission for the automobile maintenance business;
In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 162 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and subparagraph 1 (h) of the attached Table 11 of the same Act, the term “fluoring operation for the body of a motor vehicle” means the maintenance operation that can not be done by a motor vehicle user or a driver, which can not be done without obtaining the permission for the motor vehicle maintenance business, and there is no need for the motor vehicle painting operation to affect the safety of the motor vehicle.
Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 49(1) of the Automobile Management Act, Article 162 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, subparagraph 1(h) of the attached Table 11.
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Noh Chang-hee
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No5605 delivered on February 27, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The term “automobile maintenance business” in subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Automobile Management Act means the business of repairing (including checkup) automobiles (excluding two-wheeled automobiles) and changing their structure and devices: Provided, That this shall not apply to those as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 162 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that “the term “those as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation” in the proviso of Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the same Act shall be the same as [Attachment 1] 1] 1 (a) through (h) of the scope of the automobile maintenance business for automobile users, etc.: Provided, That those which are subject to the approval of change of structure and devices under Article 69 shall be excluded, and the term “the limit of the work allowed for automobile users and drivers” in subparagraph 1 of [Attachment 11] of the same Table provides that “the inspection and maintenance of body of a vehicle except for board, color and melting.” In full view of the above provisions, the term “automobile coloring business for automobiles” cannot be affected by the automobile maintenance business.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the coloring work for the vehicle body constitutes a maintenance work that can obtain permission for the automobile maintenance business is just in conclusion unless there are some improper points in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the automobile maintenance work under the Automobile Management Act. There is no reason to argue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)