(a) Whether the standards for administrative disposition of driver's license under attached Table 16 set forth in Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are applicable (negative);

(b) The case holding that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of a drunk driving in case where the executive director of the company, who is obliged to carry out his duties while driving a hand-on, booms the beer and 200 meters-meter driver's license was discovered, but a certain accident was not caused due to the drunk driving, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority.

A. The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's licenses provided in the annexed Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act as provided in Article 78 (1) of the Road Traffic Act as provided in Article 53 (1) of the same Act have no effect on externally binding the court or citizens, since the nature and contents of the provisions are merely provided in the administrative agency's internal business management rules concerning the

(b) The case holding that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of a drunk driving in case where the executive director of the company, who is obliged to carry out his duties while driving a hand-on, booms the beer and 200 meters-meter driver's license was discovered, but a certain accident was not caused due to the drunk driving, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority.

(a)Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 16(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4020 delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong1990, 2447). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7517 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 110) decided January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 769) 90Nu9186 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong102)

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11570 delivered on December 20, 1990

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 provided for in the attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which was established under Article 78 of the same Act, are merely that the nature and contents of the provisions, and the administrative rules inside the administrative agency concerning the disposition of revocation of driver's license, and thus, it is not effective to externally bind the court or the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055, Nov. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4297, Oct. 16, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4020, Oct. 30, 199; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7517, Nov. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7630, Nov. 15, 191; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu816, Feb. 26, 1991).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since October 23, 1989, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, who is an executive director in charge of the management of the general affairs, labor, etc. of the non-party KIKOn corporation, provided only vehicles from the above company and performed his duties, and the plaintiff, at the time of drinking driving, shall conclude negotiations with the above company's labor union at the time of giving advice on wage negotiations, and he also flchising with the above certified public accountant who provided consultation about wage negotiations, and then, he flchising down the same with the above company's labor union at the time of drinking driving. The court below determined that the plaintiff's decision was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to drinking level of the plaintiff's drinking, other crimes caused by drinking driving, road traffic act, distance after drinking, disadvantage caused to the plaintiff due to the above disposition of driver's license cancellation, etc., and that the plaintiff's decision was without merit in the misapprehension of the court's discretion or the judgment below's decision that the plaintiff's revocation of discretion was more justified.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)