A. Whether the act of violating public welfare under Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act can be deemed as a case where the reason for exceeding the traffic accident index alone constitutes a case where the act was committed (negative)

(b) The profits that should be bridgeed at the time of the cancellation of the license for the automobile transport business;

A. Article 680 of the Directive on January 1, 1981 (Disposition Guidelines on Article 31, etc. of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act) merely provides that the number of traffic accidents caused by the motor vehicle transport business entity’s possession of the motor vehicle is more than a certain index set forth by the said Directive, and the reason alone does not constitute an act contrary to public welfare under Article 31 subparag. 3 of the former Directive.

B. Since the three-time traffic accidents caused by the Plaintiff both cause a minor injury to three victims, in light of the violation of the violation of the provision, if the disposition is more unfavorable than the necessity of the public interest to revoke the limited license for the automobile transport business against the Plaintiff, the disposition of revocation of the license for the automobile transport business by the Defendant (the Governor of Jeollabuk-do) is an illegal act that deviates from or abused the limits of discretion.

Article 31 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu413 Decided February 22, 1983 82Nu352 Decided February 22, 1983

Plaintiff 2, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu53 delivered on April 6, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981) which was in force at the time of the cancellation of the license in this case, when a vehicle transport operator committed an act contrary to public welfare, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of business for a specified period not exceeding six months or may cancel the license in whole or in part. Thus, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 680, Jan. 1, 1982, which is cited in the theory of lawsuit, merely stated in the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s order concerning administrative affairs, merely because the number of traffic accidents caused by the vehicle transport operator’s possession exceeds a certain index as stipulated in the above order, it cannot be concluded that the cause alone constitutes an act contrary to public welfare as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the appeal that asserts that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the validity of No. 680 of the Ministry of Transport Directives in the judgment of the court below on the same ground

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's disposition of this case's revocation constitutes an unlawful act of deviating from or abusing the limits of discretion as it is reasonable in the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law in the light of the legal principles as to the scope of discretion, since the three-time traffic accidents caused by the plaintiff all were caused by minor injury to three victims, in light of the violation of the public interest that should revoke the limited license for automobile transport business against the plaintiff (the defendant is one of the subordinate sections attached to the condition of revocation of license while granting a license to the plaintiff) more unfavorable to the plaintiff due to the disposition.

3. 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)