(b) Acts and subordinate statutes that set the criteria for determining the legality of the revocation of the license for automobile transport business.

(c) A ledger of disposition to revoke a license of a vehicle on the grounds that two persons die due to a violation of duty of passage of crosswalks;

B. Although the rules on the disposition, such as the cancellation of business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act are forms of Ordinance, the nature and contents of such rules merely provide for the business process rules within the administrative agency, and thus, they should not externally arrest the relevant administrative agency or employees and not externally restrict the citizens or the court. Thus, even if the disposition such as the cancellation of business license violates the above rules, the issue of illegality does not arise, and the legality of such disposition should be determined depending on whether it conforms to the provisions and purport of the Automobile Transport Business Act, rather than the above rules.

C. A traffic accident in which the plaintiff's driver's number of driving vehicles caused the death of the non-party 2, who was crossing the road due to the negligence such as the suspension of the vehicle on the crosswalk or the violation of the duty of driving slowly, the front-time driver's negligence, the speed and the violation of the duty of driving cars, etc., constitutes the occurrence of a large number of casualties due to the serious traffic accidents as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and thus, the defendant did not err by exceeding the limits of discretion in choosing the administrative disposition for the cancellation of the license of the violating vehicle (

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Do Governor pursuant to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of business for a fixed period of not more than 6 months or may cancel all or part of a license for a motor vehicle transport business (the Do Governor pursuant to Article 9 of the same Act). The provision provides that "when a large number of casualties are caused" as one of the grounds for cancellation of a business license, the cause of "large casualties" is considered to be caused by a serious traffic accident," and it cannot be deemed that a traffic accident caused by more than 2 casualties is a "large traffic accident" as a matter of course, and it does not constitute a "large traffic accident" as a matter of course, and the issue of whether a traffic accident constitutes "large traffic accident" is a legitimate traffic accident, and it is not a violation of the provisions of Article 97 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act or the regulations of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation concerning administrative agency's authority's authority and authority.

2. Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that, around August 25, 1982.10:45, Nonparty 1, who had driven the Plaintiff-owned Seoul five History9521 (city bus), caused the death of Nonparty 2 (age 32) crossing the road on the road in front of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, and his children (age 7). The above traffic accident caused the death of Nonparty 3 (age 7). The above traffic accident was caused by negligence in driving the above vehicle on the crosswalk, which caused the occurrence of a serious danger to the life of the two people, it was erroneous for the victims to not cross the crosswalk according to the crosswalk, and that, even if the driver's negligence on the 1st line between the widths and the first line, it constitutes an accident of traffic accident in excess of the limit of the Act on the 2nd line of vehicle's revocation and the suspension of operation under the Act on the 3nd line of the above 1st day of the accident, it could not escape the Plaintiff's damages from the collision.

3. In light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the traffic accident in this case constitutes a serious accident under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and that the defendant's decision that the traffic accident in this case did not constitute an unlawful act beyond the limits of discretion since the defendant selected an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the license of the violating vehicle (the cancellation of the business license) among the dispositions under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the same Act with respect to the traffic accident in this case, and it cannot be found that there were any errors such as the theory

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)