Whether an employee of a corporation, who is a harbor transport subsidiary business entity, becomes a ground for business suspension or revocation of a license of the corporation.

Article 26-2 (3) of the Harbor Transport Business Act and Article 26 subparagraph 5 of the same Article of the same Act may suspend a harbor transport auxiliary business or revoke a license for a harbor transport auxiliary business operator, only when a corporate harbor transport ancillary business operator is punished pursuant to Articles 179 through 182 of the Customs Act, and his/her employees are punished for a violation of the Customs Act, cannot be subject to the above disposition, and subparagraph 44 of the Harbor Transport Business Directive against the above purport is invalid.

Article 26-2(3) and Article 26 subparag. 5 of the Harbor Transport Business Act, Articles 179 through 182 of the Customs Act, and Directive No. 44 of the Port Authority’s Directive

Dong Sea Ship Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Daegu High Court Decision 77Gu183 delivered on October 26, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers;

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 26 of the Harbor Transport Business Act provides that "the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries may order suspension of a harbor transport business for a specified period of time or cancel a license for the harbor transport business," and Article 26 subparagraph 5 of the same Article provides that "the above provision of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the harbor transport auxiliary business pursuant to Article 26-2 (3) of the Harbor Transport Business Act. Thus, in order to suspend a harbor transport auxiliary business or cancel a license for the harbor transport auxiliary business, the court below's determination that the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries violated the above provision of Article 179 through 182 of the Customs Act, which is a legitimate violation of the provision of the above provision of Article 179 of the same Act, is limited to the violation of the provision of the above provision of the Act, which is a natural person or an employee of the court below's order of suspension of a harbor transport business, which is a legitimate violation of the provision of the above provision of the Act, and thus, the court below's determination that the above provision of the plaintiff's order of the above provision has no violation of the provision.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)