A. Whether the binding force of the administrative disposition criteria for driver's license under attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is binding (negative);

(b) Whether the revocation of a driver's license under Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act is a binding act;

A. The criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under the attached Table 16 of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act have no effect on the court or citizens externally since the nature and contents of the provisions provide for administrative agency's internal business handling rules concerning the disposition of revocation of driver's license.

(b) The revocation of a driver's license under the provisions of Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act shall not be deemed to be a binding act except in the cases of subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the same Article.

Article 78(a) of the Road Traffic Act; attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055 decided Nov. 24, 1989 (Gong1990,156) 90Nu4297 decided Oct. 16, 1990 (Gong1990,2305) 90Nu3294 decided Oct. 30, 1990

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7342 delivered on August 23, 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 under attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which was established under Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, are only that the nature and contents of the provisions and the administrative rules of the administrative agency concerning the cancellation of driver's license, and therefore it is not effective to externally bind the court or the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu4055, Nov. 24, 1989; 90Nu4297, Oct. 16, 1990; 90Nu3294, Oct. 30, 1990; 90Nu3294, Oct. 30, 199). 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, and therefore the argument

2. The revocation of a driver's license under Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act shall not be deemed to be a binding act except in the case of subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the same Article, and even if the provisions of the attached Table 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act concerning drinking driving under Article 53 (1) of the same Act stipulate the same case as the grounds for the revocation of a license, it shall not have the effect as a law binding upon the court or the people, as mentioned above.

In the above purport, it is reasonable that the court below determined that the revocation of the driver's license by reason of drinking driving is in violation of the principle of profit and bridge because the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff is much higher than that of the realization of public interest under the Road Traffic Act, taking into account the circumstances stated in its reasoning, and therefore, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of driver's license as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. This issue is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)