Whether it is subject to the modification report prescribed in Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Trucking Transport Business Act, and whether it is subject to the modification report prescribed in the said provision to a general truck with limited supply of a truck for freezing or freezing, the supply of which is limited (negative)

If the proviso to Article 3(3) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 10804, Jun. 15, 201; hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) intends to modify minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2372, Dec. 13, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act”) provides that “the matters subject to permission for the replacement of trucks shall be subject to permission for the alteration,” but the matters subject to permission for the alteration are not subject to permission for the alteration, on the premise that the truck before and after the scrapping is of the same use, it is unnecessary to re-examine the conformity with the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is unnecessary to review the modification of the provisions of Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act to ensure that the modification of the matters subject to permission for the alteration is not subject to permission for the alteration of the truck to the extent that the truck is not subject to the same use.

Article 3(1), (3), and (5) (see current Article 3(7) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (Amended by Act No. 10804, Jun. 15, 201); Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23372, Dec. 13, 201); Articles 6, 7, 9, and 13 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 430, Dec. 31, 201); Article 52-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 2015Du50474 Decided February 18, 2016 (Gong2016Sang, 435)

Su Young Port Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Tae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Gun (Law Firm Geum River, Attorneys Go-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2017Nu11841 decided July 18, 2018

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 3 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 10804, Jun. 15, 201; hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) provides that a person who intends to operate a trucking transport business shall obtain permission as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (Article 1(1)). The main text of paragraph (3) provides that a person who has obtained permission for trucking transport business shall obtain permission for modification as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs). Following such delegation, Articles 6, 7, 9, and 13 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 430, Dec. 31, 2011) stipulate that a person who intends to operate a trucking transport business shall submit documents stating the number, type, type, type, and type of each permit.

Meanwhile, the proviso to Article 3(3) of the Trucking Transport Business Act stipulates that only a report shall be filed with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23372, Dec. 13, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act”) provides that “vehicle scrapping of a truck shall be subject to permission for modification.” However, it is not subject to permission for modification but subject to permission for modification on the premise that the report on modification on the ground of large-scale scrapping is the same use of the truck before and after the large-scale scrapping, which is based on the premise that the report on modification on the ground of large-scale scrapping is made for the same use, it is unnecessary to simplify the procedure for modification on the ground that the report on modification on the ground of large-scale scrapping is made only when the truck is not a truck for the same use, but only when it conforms to the relevant provision of Article 2(1).

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11040 Decided April 15, 2016 cited by the lower court is different and thus, it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that the Plaintiff’s replacement of a truck for a general truck with limited air conditioners, the supply of which is restricted, is subject to a report on alteration. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the main sentence of Article 3(3) of the Trucking Transport Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)