A disposition to revoke a business license for a taxi that gets a person to death and has escaped;

If the taxi transport service provider failed to thoroughly supervise the driver to take part in the relief of the victim due to the failure to cause the accident and the accident, thereby causing the driver to death by placing the victim with this taxi and committing a serious crime of escape, it would be an act contrary to public welfare, and thus, imposing sanctions on the above service provider to the extent that the business license for one taxi among the 20 vehicles belonging to the above service provider is revoked is necessary for the purpose of the automobile administration for the protection of public welfare.

Article 31 subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3513 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Taesung-si Co., Ltd.

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 82 Gu17 delivered on April 27, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party belonging to the plaintiff company, who owned and operated 20 taxis with a license for passenger transport services from the defendant, operated the plaintiff company on October 26, 1981 (vehicle registration number omitted) Posi-Gun (hereinafter this case) on October 23:5, 1981, and passed through the former Posi-Gun's National Highway, and caused an accident that caused death or death of one person and escaped. The court below determined that the defendant revoked the above disposition against the plaintiff on January 26, 1982 pursuant to Article 31 and 680 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 142, No. 680) on the ground that the above order for the transportation of the plaintiff company did not have the effect of revocation of the license for the above 1 taxi due to the lack of administrative rules or administrative regulations, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's revocation of the license for the above 1 taxi transport business due to the reason for revocation of the license.

However, as the highest person's life, body, and property risk prevention caused by the operation of the vehicle should always be one of the social responsibilities, if the driver is negligent in supervising the driver to take full charge of the rescue of the victim caused by the accident, and if the driver runs a serious criminal act that the driver runs away without rescueing the victim, it does not constitute an act contrary to public welfare under Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended before December 31, 1981). Accordingly, the above non-party's revocation of the license under Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act cannot be considered as a reason for the cancellation of the license, since it can be recognized that the non-party caused the death of the victim with the taxi and the escape is extremely bad, and therefore, it cannot be said that the act of the non-party's act would be revoked to the extent that it is necessary to protect the public welfare.

Therefore, the court below judged that the disposition of revocation of the license for the first cab of this case was abuse of discretionary power when considering which degree of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's revocation disposition of the license for the first cab of this case was appropriate to have judged whether or not to abuse discretionary power by comparing and comparing the necessity of the public interest as seen above and the damages therefrom. However, the court below held that the defendant's disposition of revocation of the license for the first cab of this case was an abuse of discretionary power. The court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretionary power, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)