A case where a revocation disposition of a license for a motor vehicle transport business on the grounds of a traffic accident which has not more than 3 months is justified.

When cancelling so-called beneficial disposition such as a license of transport service, the cancellation shall be decided after comparing and comparing the needs of public interest to be cancelled and the disadvantage suffered by the licence holder due to the cancellation. The plaintiff's driver's vehicle operation, which causes serious injury to human body for 4 weeks in a short-term (3 months), and 10 days in a small period of time, shall be an act contrary to public welfare under Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which provides for the grounds for cancellation of license, and the plaintiff's disadvantage that prevents the driver's transport service due to the cancellation shall not be limited to the plaintiff's disadvantage, and therefore, the cancellation disposition of a license, which was made in accordance with the criteria for the disposition guidelines on the violating vehicle as provided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, shall not be considered as a deviation or abuse of discretion.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Plaintiff

Jeollabuk-do Branch Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu49 delivered on April 6, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff has been operating the Jeonbuk-ro taxi with a license for the passenger transport business from the defendant, and the above taxi was injured on three occasions in the same year, 1981.3.9, 5.16, and 5.30 of the same year, and on this ground, the defendant issued an accident that caused bodily injury to a human body, and on this ground, issued a disposition under Article 31 and 7 of the Guidelines for Disposition on Automobile Transport Business (No. 142 and No. 680 of the Ministry of Transport and 1965, Sep. 15, 1965) of the above Guidelines for Disposition on Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 142 and No. 680 of Jan. 1, 1981) on the premise that there is no dispute between the parties to the above disposition. The defendant cannot be viewed to have been revoked on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the conditions of the above license, or that there is no need to cancel the above disposal of the victim's.

2. In recent years, as the scope of activities of people is widened and materials are moved frequently according to the industrial development of Korea, the operation of vehicles is rapidly increased, and the accident rate thereof frequently occurred, and the accident rate of the vehicle is the same as the publicly notified fact that the accident rate is so far as it cannot be seen as the accident rate of other Ghana. In the operation of the vehicle, a person engaged in the automobile transport business should inevitably lead to the prevention of accidents to people's lives, bodies and property which may be caused by the vehicle operation and endeavor to establish the traffic order based on the prevention of accidents to the people's lives, bodies and property. In addition, there is no need to say that the articles of incorporation should provide a thorough guidance to the automobile transport service provider and to promote public welfare by establishing the traffic order.

In addition, when cancelling the so-called beneficial disposition such as the license of this case, it is original time to determine whether to cancel the license after comparing the necessity of public interest to cancel the license and the disadvantage to the licensee due to the cancellation. However, as seen in the above original market, the traffic accident causing serious injury to the human body due to the plaintiff's vehicle operation for 4 weeks within a short time, and 10 days within a small time, as seen in the above original market, it does not seem to be against the public welfare of Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act as stipulated in the ground for cancellation of the license, and the disadvantage of the plaintiff who could not carry on the transport service due to the cancellation is nothing more than that of the plaintiff's disadvantage that the cancellation is against the public welfare of Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and therefore, it cannot be argued that the administrative act, which was conducted by the defendant in accordance with the criteria for disposition on the violating vehicle as stipulated in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, was beyond discretionary power or abused.

Therefore, the above determination at the original time cannot be exempt from the misunderstanding of the principle of comparative bridges or the legal principles as to discretionary power, and thus, we reverse and remanded the judgment of the court below on the grounds of this point.

This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)