(a) The case holding that revocation of a license in accordance with the above sub-section within the reasonable scope of discretionary power, unless he intentionally violates the conditions of authorization and the conditions of authorization attached to the conditions of authorization at the time of modification of business plan and the conditions of authorization for violation thereof;

(b) Whether a motor vehicle transport business operator constitutes a case where he/she has engaged a motor vehicle transport business operator to manage the business;

(c) The legal nature and effect of the rules governing the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(a) The case holding that the revocation of a license under the above sub-sections within the reasonable scope of discretionary power is within the case where, at the time of the modification of a business plan, the conditions of the authorization and the sub-sections by which the authorization may be revoked are violated;

B. In a case where a local government-invested person moves into a company with a license for a motor vehicle transport business and carries on a motor vehicle transport business under the general direction of the company, such local government-invested person cannot be deemed to be a "other person" as provided in Article 26 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, and even if the company had a local government-invested person operate the vehicle under the name of the local government-invested person, it shall not be deemed a violation of the said provision of the said Act.

C. The nature of the Rules on the Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 742 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 742 of July 31, 1982) is merely a provision on the business management standards and disposal procedures within the administrative agency such as the business management standards and disposition procedures related to the cancellation, etc. of the business license

(a) Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 70Da867 delivered on July 24, 1970, 82Do102 delivered on December 14, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 delivered on February 28, 1984

Hawawa Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Tae-tae and Taewon

Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 83 Gu4 delivered on April 10, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in the event of supplement in the above grounds of appeal since the supplementary grounds of appeal by the attorney Kim Tae-tae were not timely filed) are examined.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, 5 through 7:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the whole evidences, sold the right to operate each of the instant bus and its bus and its transport business to the non-party 1 and the third party on April 198, 198, and ordered the non-party to pay KRW 50,000 for each of the instant bus to the plaintiff company from September 27, 1978 and December 12, 1980, for the alteration of each business plan, which increases the four buses of this case as indicated in the judgment of the defendant, and violated the conditions of the approval, despite the attachment of the part of the withdrawal right reservation that can cancel the approval, the court below held that the non-party 1 violated the conditions of the approval of the non-party 1's right to use the instant bus and its transport business under the conditions of the approval of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and the above non-party 1's revocation of the approval of the plaintiff company's right to use the instant bus and its revocation of the registration of the plaintiff 1's right.

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 8

Even if the ground for revocation of a license as provided in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act has occurred, the revocation of a license has a limitation that should be exercised in violation of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality by comparing and comparing the disadvantage suffered by the other party through the public interest of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the disposition of revocation of a license, which is to be achieved by the reason for revocation of the license, and considering the fairness of the disposition of revocation. However, if the defendant's approval of the above increase of the number of vehicles, the defendant's approval of the complete maintenance of the increased number of vehicles should promote the improvement of management through commercialization of the automobile transport business and to prevent the closure caused by the small business operator who acquired the above transfer of the vehicle to another company with the interest of the transfer of the vehicle and the separate operation of the vehicle in the form of the land by the small business operator who acquired it was reserved to the defendant for the purpose of securing its purpose, so long as the plaintiff company intentionally violated the conditions of the authorization, the degree of violation cannot be severe, and therefore, the court below's judgment is justified in its holding that it should be justified.

(3) As to ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where a land owner operator enters a vehicle into a company with a license for a motor vehicle transport business and carries on a motor vehicle transport business under the general direction of the company, it cannot be viewed as a "other person" as provided in Article 26 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, and even if the land owner operated a motor vehicle under his name, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the above provisions of the law (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do102 delivered on December 14, 1982 and 70Da867 delivered on July 24, 1970). Thus, the court below's reasoning of the above facts alone that the plaintiff company constitutes a violation of the above provisions of the law and supported the defendant's measures based on the above provisions of the law as one of the grounds for the revocation of the license of this case. However, the court below's decision that this case's revocation of license can not be affected as long as the so-called authorized conditions constitute a violation of the above provisions of the law.

(4) As to ground of appeal No. 4

In comparison with the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the plaintiff's opinion that the defendant did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to make a statement or make a vindication as stipulated in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 742 of July 31, 1982), and Article 5 (1) of the Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 742 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 742 of July 28, 1982). However, even according to the above provisions, if evidence as to the reasons for disposition is clear, it is not necessary to give the other party an opportunity to make a statement or make a vindication. According to the records, the above rules' nature is not clear at the time of the disposition of revocation of license, and even if it violates the above regulations, the issue of illegality is not caused, and thus, the court below's decision cannot be dismissed as it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, it did not err by misapprehending the above judgment.

(5) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)