Whether it is subject to the change permission under the main sentence of Article 3 (3) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act to change a vehicle that is permitted to be supplied to the "vehicle scrapping" subject to the change report under Article 2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (affirmative)

Article 3(1) and (3), Article 19(1)2, Article 67 subparag. 1, and Article 70(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 12475, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter “trucking Act”), such as the provision of separate permission for change, procedures for alteration, and effects of trucking transport business, are not required for the examination of the same type of trucking transport business, and it is difficult to view that the new type of trucking transport business is subject to alteration permission under the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 124, Sept. 19, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) to change the type of trucking transport business to the extent that it conforms to the criteria for the new permit for alteration, such as the provision of an individual type of trucking transport business, under the premise that the new permit for alteration is not permissible for the new type of trucking transport business.

Articles 3(1), (3) and (5)1, 19(1)2, 57, subparagraph 1, and 70(2)1 of Article 67, Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Amended by Act No. 12475, Mar. 18, 2014); Article 6(1), (2)2, 4, and 5, Articles 7(1) and (2), 9(1), (2), (3), and 52-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Amended by Act No. 1244, Sep. 19, 2014);

One Special Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Sung-ju Gun (Law Firm Gai General Law Office, Attorneys Don-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2014Nu6778 decided August 17, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to a claim for revocation of business suspension

A. As to the first ground for appeal

(1) Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 12475, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) provides that a person who intends to operate a trucking transport business shall obtain permission under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Article 1); that a person who intends to obtain permission to change his/her permitted matters shall obtain permission to do so, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (the main sentence of paragraph (3); that, if he/she intends to change matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she shall obtain permission to change his/her existing trucking transport business by examining whether he/she is permitted to do so; that person shall obtain permission to change his/her existing trucking transport business (Article 124 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act; that person shall obtain permission to change his/her existing trucking transport business; that person shall obtain permission to establish a new trucking transport business, including the number of trucks, types, sales contracts, and certificates of trucking containers or certificates.

(2) As above, the trucking statutes stipulate the subject matter of permission for change and the subject matter of permission for change by dividing the subject matter of permission for change and providing detailed regulations on the criteria for examination of additional documents to be submitted and the subject matter of permission for change, unlike the subject matter of permission for change, and allowing heavy sanctions if any revision is made without obtaining permission for change. If it is not necessary to re-examine the subject matter in light of the relevant statutes, the procedural burden of trucking business operators, such as costs and time, should be mitigated by simplification of the procedures for change, and if it is necessary to re-examine the subject matter in compliance with the relevant statutes, such as the criteria for permission, etc., the procedure for permission for trucking transport business should be followed.

In addition to the language and text of the relevant provision, including the subject matter of permission for change and the subject matter of reporting on change, the legislative purport of the system for permission for change, including ① the submission of documents stating the type, type, etc. of individual trucks when applying for permission for trucking transport business or for permission for change accompanying the increase of trucking transport business; and ③ the submission of permission and permission for change after checking whether the relevant provision satisfies the criteria for permission according to the type, size, loading volume, type, etc. of individual trucks, appears to have been premised on the contents of permission for trucking transport business including the type, type, type, etc. of individual vehicles. ② In the case of “large-scale scrapping,” the subject matter of reporting on change is not subject to permission for change, under the premise that the reporting on change on the ground of large-scale scrapping is limited to the case of a truck for the same purpose, and thus, it is difficult to view that the new provision of the new provision of the vehicle to the extent that the new provision of the vehicle differs before and after the change of the type, type, etc. of the vehicle to the extent permitted.

(3) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court determined that: (a) in order to resolve imbalances caused by the excessive supply of trucking transport businesses, the truck law’s conversion of trucking transport businesses from the registration system to the permission system; (b) the supply standards for trucking transport businesses, which are publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, prohibit the new supply of trucking transport businesses (permission) since 2004; (c) exceptionally allow the new supply only for trucking transport businesses using some special-purpose trucks; (d) in order to ensure that the large-scale scrapping of trucks is subject to the change report, the act of the Plaintiff’s act of changing the special-purpose truck to the general trucking transport business and using it to the general trucking transport business constitutes a change in the supply standards publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in consideration of the demand for cargo transport; and (d) the act of the Plaintiff’s act of changing the supply of the general-use trucking transport business through the large-scaleing method without obtaining the permission.

(4) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the requirements for the disposition of business suspension, or exceeding the bounds of the principle

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The legality of an administrative disposition shall be determined on the basis of the statutes and facts at the time of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4464, Oct. 25, 2002, etc.). Unless there are any special provisions otherwise in order to impose administrative sanctions against a violation of the Act, the statutes that were enforced at the time of the violation shall be followed (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu63, Jan. 20, 1987, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, on May 26, 2015, the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act was amended and enforced on May 26, 2015, which was subsequent to the disposition disposition of the instant case, and the disposition standards, such as the suspension of business, for the instant violation, were somewhat changed compared to that prior thereto, but the said amended Enforcement Decree did not exist at the time of the disposition of the instant

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the application of truck laws.

2. As to the claim to revoke the suspension of the payment of fuel subsidies

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the suspension of payment of fuel subsidies, but no ground of appeal on this part is stated in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief submitted by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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-bok (Presiding Justice)