A. Whether the standards 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 applicable (negative)

(b) The case holding that the disposition to revoke the license of a private taxi driver is unlawful as it deviates from its discretion, taking into account the motive, degree of drinking, accidentless driving experience, driving distance after drinking, disadvantage to be suffered from the revocation of the driver's license;

A. The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under the attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is established under Article 78 of the same Act, have no effect on externally binding the court or citizens, since the nature and contents of the provision, the administrative disposition rules of administrative agencies concerning the revocation of driver's license, etc. are merely provided for

B. The case holding that a disposition to revoke a driver's license under the Road Traffic Act, which is the largest amount of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving, is illegal because it goes against the principle of profit and bridge because it goes beyond the public interest purpose under the Road Traffic Act, because it is too too much disadvantage that the plaintiff will suffer rather than the realization of the public interest purpose under the Road Traffic Act, and thus is contrary to the principle of profit and bridge since it is unlawful in light of various circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff's driver's license is the only means of living of the plaintiff and the driver's license is revoked if the driver's license is revoked, and the driver's license is revoked.

(a) Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act and attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53(1) and Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055 decided Nov. 24, 1989 (Gong1990, 156) 90Nu4297 decided Oct. 16, 1990 (Gong1990, 2306)

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu12047 delivered on January 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is established under Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, are merely that the nature and contents of the provision, the administrative rules of administrative agencies concerning the disposition of revocation of driver's license, and it is not effective to externally bind the court or citizens (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4297 delivered on October 16, 1990).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and therefore the argument is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff acquired a driver's license on July 7, 1980, he worked as a driver for his own use, takes over KRW 25,500,00 from Non-party 1 to Non-party 2 on October 9, 1989 the proceeds of his private taxi and private taxi transport business license from Non-party 2,50,00, and obtained an approval for transfer of his private taxi transport business license from the defendant on November 13 of the same year, and had his private taxi transport business run it for two months after the date of the judgment of the court below on February 3, 1990, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's private taxi transport business did not suffer from the above disposition of the non-party 1's non-driving driver's license on the ground that the plaintiff's non-driving driver's non-driving driver's license was not found to have been found to have a traffic accident by the plaintiff's non-driving driver's non-driving driver's license on the ground.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)