(a) Legal nature of the treatment guidelines (No. 680 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 680) concerning Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) Gains to be considered at the time of revocation of a license for a motor vehicle transport business.

A. The Guidelines for Disposition concerning Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 680 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs) cannot be deemed to have the nature of the laws and regulations, and only orders inside the administrative organization are issued, and the regulations do not bind the discretion or court of the administrative agency guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

B. In the revocation of a license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the reason should be reviewed as the reason for the revocation of license, and the other party's disadvantage should be compared by the public interest under the Automobile Transport Business Act and the revocation of license.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu293 delivered on April 22, 1980, 80Nu172 delivered on April 14, 1981, 82Nu156 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Nu304 delivered on November 23, 1982, 82Nu181 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Nu304 delivered on November 23, 1982

Exclusive Transport Limited Partnership

Jeonnam-do Governor (Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu38 delivered on June 15, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main point of this issue is that the Minister of Construction and Transportation, a superior administrative agency, is not able to have the nature of laws and regulations, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation is ordered to direct the exercise of authority and order duties to employees of a subordinate agency. It is nothing more than an order inside the administrative organization, and the court is not bound by the discretionary power of the administrative agency guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Supreme Court Decision 82Nu304 delivered on Nov. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu172 delivered on Apr. 14, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu293 delivered on Apr. 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu293 delivered on Apr. 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 201Nu28199 delivered on Apr. 28, 201). The decision of the court below is justified by examining the legal principles as to the revocation of the license and the decision of the court below.

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)