The legal nature of the Rules (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 742 of July 31, 1982) concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Rules concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 724 of July 1, 1982) have the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization, which was issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees concerned in accordance with the guidelines for exercising their authority and authority, and cannot be deemed to have the nature of legal orders. Thus, the said rules cannot be binding upon the discretion of the administrative agencies guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 delivered on February 28, 1984, 83Nu676 delivered on April 10, 1984

Plaintiff 1, 200

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu255 delivered on February 7, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Rules concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 724, Jul. 31, 1982) have the nature of administrative orders inside the administrative organization, which was issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees concerned in accordance with the guidelines for the exercise of their authority and authority, and cannot be deemed to have the nature of legal orders (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551, Feb. 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu676, Apr. 10, 1984). Thus, the above rules cannot be the grounds for binding discretion of the administrative agencies guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Unlike the opinion, the defendant's private taxi transport business revocation disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below that it is abuse of discretion.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)