(a) Requirements for the suspension or cancellation of a business for a harbor transport auxiliary businessman;

(b) Validity of the Prime Minister’s directives No. 114 and Port Authority’s directives No. 44;

1. In order for a harbor transport auxiliary businessman to suspend his business or cancel his license, the harbor transport businessman shall be limited to the time when he was punished under Articles 179 through 182 of the Customs Act, that is, in case where the proprietor or the proprietor who is a natural person is a juristic person, to the time when the juristic person has been punished under Article 196 of the Customs Act; and

2. If an employee of a harbor transport auxiliary entity commits a customs offence under the Prime Minister’s Directive No. 114 and No. 44 of the Port Authority’s Directive, even if an administrative disposition is taken against a harbor transport auxiliary entity, this is merely an internal rule of an administrative organization, and any instruction that violates the Harbor Transport Business Act has no effect.

Articles 26-2 and 26 of the Harbor Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu99 Decided July 10, 1979

Attorney Kang-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the limited partnership company

Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu63 delivered on November 20, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 26 (3) of the Harbor Transport Business Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the harbor transport auxiliary business, the court below determined that "the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries may order the suspension of the business for a fixed period of time or cancel the license of the harbor transport business" under subparagraph 5 of Article 26-2 of the same Act, which provides that "the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries may order the suspension of the business or cancel the license of the harbor transport business" shall be subject to punishment under Articles 179 through 182 of the same Act. Thus, the court below's decision that the permission authority for the harbor transport ancillary business in order to suspend the business or cancel the license of the harbor transport auxiliary business without any legal basis for the disposition of suspension of the business against the plaintiff's own business under Articles 26-2 and 26 (5) of the Harbor Transport Business Act, which is a natural person or a juristic person, shall be limited to the case where the plaintiff's representative or the representative is subject to the punishment of the non-party employee's violation of the above provisions of the Customs Act.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)