Whether the revocation disposition again taken by the Do Governor after the suspension of the use of the motor vehicle by the chief of the police station due to the same accident is against the prohibition

The disposition of the suspension of the use of a motor vehicle by the chief of a police station is an administrative disposition under the Road Traffic Act with the purpose of preventing any danger and injury to all traffic on the roads and promoting the safety and smooth operation of traffic. The disposition of the revocation of the driver's license for the motor vehicle transport service with the purpose of promoting public welfare by establishing order in the motor vehicle transport service business and promoting comprehensive development of the motor vehicle transport service business shall be different from the disposition authority and the grounds, purpose, and contents of the disposition. Therefore,

Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

September 28, 1982, 82Nu181 decided Sep. 28, 1982 (Gong215Gong693, Oct. 1029)

Plaintiff

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu181 Decided September 28, 1982

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On August 18, 1981, the defendant's revocation of the partial revocation of the driver's license for the motor vehicle transport business (motor vehicle number omitted) against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On December 7, 1978, when the Plaintiff had 11 vehicles to be used for the said business under the name of the owner of a month (trade omitted) after obtaining a license for automobile transport business under Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act from the Defendant, and operated the said transport business, Nonparty 1, the driver of the (vehicle Number omitted) vehicle used for the said transport business on June 23, 1981: around 20, when the Plaintiff driven the said vehicle and operated the said vehicle on June 23, 1981, Nonparty 1, the operator of the (vehicle Number omitted), who was using the said vehicle for the said transport business, operated the said vehicle on June 23, 1981: on the other hand, at the speed of 80 kilometers per hour at the time of the amendment of the former office-gun-gu Masan-gun, the former office was driving the said vehicle at the speed of 4 weeks; and on August 18, 1981, it constitutes a cause for cancellation of the Plaintiff’s license or the order of the said business under the former Act.

The plaintiff asserted that the head of the military police station ordered the suspension of the use of the vehicle involved in the accident for 120 days on June 19, 1981. However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Notice of Suspension of Use of Motor Vehicles) that the defendant again ordered the cancellation of the license of the same accident, and thus, it is illegal because the head of the military police station did not have any dispute over the establishment of the accident of this case. Thus, even though the head of the military police station is recognized as having ordered the suspension of the use of the motor vehicle of the same head of the plaintiff for the reason of the accident of this case, it is an administrative disposition under the Road Traffic Act with the purpose of preventing all traffic hazards occurring on the roads and promoting the safety and smooth flow of traffic by establishing order on the motor vehicle transport business of this case and promoting the comprehensive development of the motor vehicle transport business, the disposition of this case differs from the grounds, purpose, and contents of the disposition of this case as a double disposition against the same facts.

Furthermore, according to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which was enforced at the time of the accident (amended by December 31, 1981), the Plaintiff does not necessarily have to revoke the whole or part of the license, but may order the suspension of business for a fixed period of not more than six months. Since the Defendant asserts that the cancellation of the license (the partial cancellation of the business license) for the vehicle involved in the accident of this case is an illegal disposition that considerably deviates from discretionary power, it is an illegal disposition. Thus, according to Article 2-2 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident of this case, who caused the traffic accident of this case, was carrying the victim to the hospital, and returned to the hospital, it can be recognized that the non-party 1, who caused the accident of this case, has escaped without any counter-proof evidence, and thus, it is extremely very serious criminal act of the non-party 1's act in the accident of this case, which caused the Plaintiff's cancellation of the license for the vehicle in this case, and thus, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff's revocation of the above disposition for public interest.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is without merit, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge) wills