Where a person who operates a private taxi after obtaining a private taxi transport business license intends to cause a traffic accident that inflicts an injury on three persons due to negligence while driving the said vehicle in the state of the drinking day, and the Do Governor revokes the driver's license on the ground of the above driving accident, and the Mayor revokes the driver's license on the ground that the driver's license was revoked as above and the driver was unable to drive himself/herself, the case holding that each of the above dispositions is lawful, and there is no violation of law beyond the discretionary authority.

The case holding that where the Plaintiff’s private taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked, and the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license was revoked, even if the Plaintiff’s personal situation and disadvantage were to be considered, the disposition of revocation of the driver’s license and the disposition of revocation of the driver’s license were lawful, and the disposition of revocation of the driver’s license and the disposition of the driver’s license do not violate the bounds of discretionary authority.

Article 31(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Chuncheon Market

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu15194 delivered on December 4, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's personal taxi transport business's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1'

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)