In case where a person who has obtained a trucking transport business license under Article 4 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act changes the business plan, whether it is sufficient to register under Article 3 (2) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act, regardless of Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act (affirmative)

In full view of Article 3(1) and (2) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), Articles 2 and 4(1) of the Addenda of the former Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 4 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), and other relevant provisions of the Act, it is deemed that the license system of trucking transport business under Articles 4 and 13 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act has been converted into the registration system by the enactment of the Trucking Transport Business Act. A person who obtained a trucking transport business license under Article 4 of the same Act shall be deemed to have completed the registration of trucking transport business under Article 3(1) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act without the need for new registration due to the enforcement of the former Trucking Transport Business Act. Thus, even if a registered trucking business operator intends to modify the business plan, it shall meet the registration under Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the same Act.

Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 2 and Article 4 (1) of the Addenda ( August 30, 1997) of the Trucking Transport Business Act, Article 4 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997) (see Article 5 of the current Passenger Transport Service Act)

3. A person who is a party to a contract;

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu11276 delivered on December 17, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 (1) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5408 of Aug. 30, 1997 and amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that any person who intends to operate the trucking transport business shall prepare a business plan concerning the trucking transport business and register it with the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that any person who intends to operate the trucking transport business shall register it with the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation when any trucking transport business operator who has registered the trucking transport business under the provisions of paragraph (1) intends to modify any registered matters including the business plan, and Paragraph (1) of the Addenda provides that any person who has obtained a license or registered for the trucking transport business under the provisions of Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be deemed to have registered the trucking transport business under the provisions of Article 3.

In full view of these regulations and other relevant provisions, it seems that the license system of trucking transport business as stipulated in Articles 4 and 13 of the previous Automobile Transport Business Act was converted into the registration system under the enactment of the Trucking Transport Business Act. As legally established by the court below, in the case of the plaintiff who obtained a license of trucking transport business from the defendant on October 18, 1979 under Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the plaintiff is considered to have completed the registration of trucking transport business pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Act pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Act without the need for new registration due to the enforcement of the Act. Thus, even in the case where the plaintiff registered as a trucking business operator intends to change the business plan, regardless of the provisions of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act, it shall also be deemed that the registration should be made pursuant to Article 3 (

The court below is just in holding that the modification of the business plan of this case requested by the plaintiff is registered as a registered matter under Article 3 (2) of the Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 3 of the Act and Articles 2 and 4 of the Addenda, or in the omission of reason or omission of reason. The ground of appeal that the former person who obtained a transportation business license is not a transportation business operator under Article 3 (1) of the Act shall not be accepted as an independent

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)