(a) Legal nature of the Rules (No. 724 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 724 of July 31, 1982) concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under the provisions of Article 31

(b)The adequacy of the disposition of the revocation of the private taxi transport business license on the ground of a single proxy driving (negative);

A. Rule concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 724 of July 31, 1982) has the nature of an administrative order within an administrative organization, which is issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees concerned in accordance with the guidelines for exercising their authority and authority, and cannot be deemed to have the nature of

B. A private taxi driver who has obtained a license for automobile transportation business on condition that he/she does not have a substitute driving, and the revocation of the license is already imposed a penalty surcharge on the ground that he/she has failed to report the substitute driving. Considering that the private taxi business is the only means of living of the above driver who has attempted to manipulate as if he/she had a legitimate reason for the substitute driving, even if he/she had attempted to do so, it is an illegal disposition that deviates from the scope of discretion.

(a) Rules pertaining to the disposition such as the cancellation, etc. of a business license as prescribed in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 724 of July 31, 1982);

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 delivered on February 28, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu328 delivered on March 8, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 724, Jul. 31, 1982) have the nature of administrative order within the administrative organization, which was issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees concerned in accordance with the guidelines for exercising their official authority, and cannot be viewed as having the nature of legal order like the theory of litigation (Law No. 83Nu551, Feb. 28, 1984). We cannot accept the judgment of the court below to the same purport differently with the opinion of opinion.

With respect to the second ground:

On the grounds of the judgment below, although the defendant obtained a driver's license for private taxi transport business with respect to private taxi under the condition that the plaintiff will not drive on behalf of the plaintiff, he violated the conditions of the driver's license on July 25, 1983 and revoked the driver's license on March 30, 1984. However, according to macroficial evidence, the defendant already did not impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 100,000 on the plaintiff on October 17, 1983 and did not notify the cancellation of the license, and the period of proxy driving was only one time per day. Private taxi business with the driver's license for transportation business of this case can be recognized as being one million won, which is the birth means of the plaintiff who supports the wife and two children. Thus, even if the plaintiff attempted to operate on behalf of the plaintiff as if there was a justifiable reason, the defendant did not have any significant reason to do so, and therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of violation of the law and discretionary authority is justified.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju