(a) Validity of the criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license prescribed in attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) The case holding that the revocation of a driver's license for an individual taxi driver who has driven a driver is a deviation of discretion;

A. The criteria for the administrative disposition of driver's license under the attached Table 16 under Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, which is established by the provision of Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, provided that the nature and contents of the provision provide the administrative agency with respect to the disposition of revocation of driver's license, and thus, the administrative agency or staff inside the administrative organization is bound by the court or

(b) The case holding that the revocation of a driver's license for an individual taxi driver who has driven a driver is a deviation of discretion;

Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu151 delivered on April 8, 1980

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu651 delivered on May 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The criteria for administrative disposition under attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act established pursuant to Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act. Since the nature and contents of the provision of the above administrative disposition under Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule are bound by the administrative agency about the cancellation of driver's license, it shall not be effective by the court or citizens (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu151 delivered on April 8, 1980). The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) the plaintiff, who was examined in the records of the judgment of the court below, did not suffer damage to the plaintiff's personal taxi transport business under Article 41(1) of the Road Traffic Act by driving the above 10-day driver's license under Article 53 of the same Enforcement Rule; (b) the plaintiff's personal taxi transport business without permission under Article 53 of the same Enforcement Rule, which was the only measure for cancellation of driver's license under Article 16 of the Road Traffic Act for 7 years or more; and (c) the plaintiff's personal taxi transport business without permission under Article 908 of the Road Traffic Act.

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 Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)