The nature and effect of the Rules (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 742) concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

The Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 742) stipulated in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is merely a form of the Ordinance or the nature and content of the regulations stipulated in the administrative agency's business process standards and disposition procedures concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of automobile transport business license. Therefore, the administrative organization inside the administrative organization has the nature of administrative order because it is difficult to detain the relevant administrative agency or employees and to externally restrict the court. Thus, the disposition such as cancellation, etc. of automobile transport business license cannot be a legitimate disposition,

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu89 delivered on May 27, 1986, 86Nu533 delivered on November 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu735 delivered on April 14, 1987, 87Nu674 delivered on September 22, 1987, 88Nu3420 delivered on June 14, 198

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the New Tourism Corporation

Attorney Cho Yong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1262 delivered on April 12, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal, the first and second points are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's partial revocation of the driver's license of this case against the plaintiff does not constitute the case where the plaintiff caused a large number of casualties due to serious traffic accidents under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and it is sufficient to revoke the driver's license of this case for the public interest purpose to be achieved by the Automobile Transport Business Act in light of the circumstances that are recognized and explained by the court below, and therefore, it is sufficient to revoke the driver's license of this case for the only vehicle of this case, and therefore, the revocation of the driver's license of this case for the other vehicle is an abuse

In addition, the court below held that the rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a vehicle transport service license (Ordinance No. 742) under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is a full-time system, have the nature of an administrative order within an administrative organization, since the nature and contents of the rules are merely a provision of the administrative process standards and disposition procedures concerning cancellation, etc. of a vehicle transport service license, and therefore, they have the nature of administrative order within the administrative organization, and therefore, the above rules have the nature of administrative order within the administrative organization, which is merely binding upon the relevant administrative agency or employees, and it is hard to externally detain the court. Therefore, the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a vehicle transport service license is in accordance with the criteria as prescribed by the above rules, and the legality of the disposition must be determined according to whether it conforms to the provisions and purport of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

The judgment of the court below on the above rule is justified (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu89 delivered on May 27, 1986). If the facts were as recognized by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified that the cancellation of the business license by the defendant on vehicles other than the accident vehicle would abuse or deviate from discretionary power, and therefore there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)