(a) Whether the external binding force of the criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act exists (negative);

B. Whether the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency’s revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving is a binding act (negative)

A. The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are the form of Ministerial Ordinance. However, the nature and contents of the provisions are merely that provide for the administrative agency's internal business management rules such as the standards for disposition of driver's license revocation, etc. and therefore, it has no effect to externally bind citizens or

B. The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency’s revocation of a driver’s license pursuant to Article 78 Subparag. 8 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that a person with a driver’s license drives a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol is not binding

(a)Article 78 subparagraph 8 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, attached Table 16(b) of the Road Traffic Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9186 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong1991,102) 91Nu1417 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991,1650) 91Nu2083 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991,1932) 2. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7630 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong191,769)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu4439 delivered on September 8, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer

Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that the criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act shall be in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, but it is merely that the nature and contents of the provision provide the internal administrative rules such as the guidelines for handling affairs concerning the cancellation of driver's license and the procedure for handling affairs within the administrative agency such as the procedure for disposition. Thus, the fact that the provision has no effect on the public or the court externally has no effect on the part of the party members (Supreme Court Decision 89Nu405 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4297 delivered on Oct. 16, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7517 delivered on Nov. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7630 delivered on Nov. 15, 191; Supreme Court Decision 190Nu1698 delivered on Dec. 16, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 201.10

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency finds that the revocation of a driver's license pursuant to Article 78 subparagraph 8 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that a person who has obtained a driver's license is driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is not a continuous act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7630, Jan. 15, 1991). Thus, in consideration of the circumstances stated in the same purport, the decision of the court below that the defendant deprived of the driver's license of this case on the ground of drinking driving is unlawful because it goes beyond the scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant's act of depriving the driver's license of this case on the ground of drinking driving is realization of the public interest purpose to achieve under the Road Traffic Act. The decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.