[1] Whether the external binding force of the administrative disposition standards for driver's license under the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act exists (negative)

[2] Whether a crime, which is the ground for revocation of a driver's license, is included in the crime without any explicit provision (affirmative), and whether the revocation disposition of a driver's license on the ground that the crime of the same kind is highly likely to recommit a crime using a vehicle is legitimate

[1] The criteria for administrative disposition of a driver's license under Article 53 (1) [Attachment Table 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act have no effect to externally bind citizens or courts since they are merely those prescribed by the administrative agency's internal business management rules such as the handling standards and disposition procedures for the disposition of driver's license.

[2] Whether a disposition to revoke a driver's license is lawful shall not be determined by the administrative disposition criteria under Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, but by the contents and purport of the Road Traffic Act, rather than by the administrative disposition criteria under the provision of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the administrative disposition criteria for the driver's license include only murder, bodily abandonment, robbery, rape, fire, abduction, illegal confinement, and no indecent act by force. However, in light of the contents and purport of Article 78 (1) 5 of the Road Traffic Act, which intends to prevent a criminal act by cancelling or suspending a driver's license of a person who committed a criminal act by driving a motor vehicle, and thereby prevent a criminal act again using a motor vehicle by a private taxi driver who is in charge of the convenience of traffic of the general public and who is a personal taxi driver who is required to transport an unspecified number of passengers every day, and thus, the disposition to revoke the driver's license is legitimate because it is considerably dangerous that a personal taxi driver has committed a criminal act of the same kind by compulsion of the victim.

[1] Article 78 (1) 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 78 (1) 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition], 2, 4, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2083 decided Jun. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1932) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15253 decided Feb. 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 995) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5773 decided May 30, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 1904)

Plaintiff

The commissioner of Chungcheongnam-do Police Agency

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu1038 delivered on October 11, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, a private taxi driver, committed an indecent act by force against the victim's will who is a female passenger boarding the taxi at night. The court below held that the defendant's act of violation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, such as the procedure for handling affairs concerning driver's license and the procedure for disposal of affairs inside the administrative agency, such as the procedure for disposition of cancellation of driver's license, is nothing more than that of the provision of administrative disposition regulations within the administrative agency. Thus, the determination of revocation of driver's license should be made in accordance with the contents and purport of the Road Traffic Act, not only based on the administrative disposition standards of the driver's license, but also based on the fact-finding of the above administrative disposition standards. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts that the plaintiff's act of violation of the provisions of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as murder and temporary abandonment of the driver's license, robbery, rape, abuse of the driver's license.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)