1. Whether the disposition guidelines with respect to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 680 on January 1, 1981) are effective as the Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. A bridge for comparison of public and private interests in the withdrawal of disposition for profits.

1. The Guidelines for Disposition with respect to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 680 of January 1, 1981) is a direction with respect to the standards for the management of administrative affairs, which is merely an administrative order having effect only inside the administrative agency or between the administrative agencies, and is void as a law;

2. The decision shall be made by comparing and comparing the needs for public interest to be withdrawn and the disadvantage to be suffered by the person who has the right to benefit due to such withdrawal, etc., with the reason that the withdrawal of the disposition of benefit, such as the license for automobile transport business, exists.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

【Sengbal Transport】

Jeonnam-do Governor

(1) The Defendant’s disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for the motor vehicle transport service of No. 1009 and 1012, South and North Korea, as of November 10, 1981, on the part of the Plaintiff 1514-5652.

(2) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) In accordance with Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act on September 20, 1979, the Defendant issued a taxi passenger transport service license to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff operated 12 taxis, including Jeonnam 1,009 and 1012 taxi, etc., and the 8 taxi price of the Plaintiff company, including the said vehicle, was the accident involving the injury of people on 12 occasions before and after January 17, 1981 to June 29 of the same year. Accordingly, the Defendant issued an accident involving the Plaintiff as of November 10, 1981 under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 7 of the Guidelines for Disposition on Disposition on Article 31 and Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 680 of the Ministry of Transport Directive on January 1, 1981), and the fact that revocation of the license of the order is no dispute between the parties concerned.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that there was an error of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power in the light of the fact that the number of times of the accident was extremely less than 1/5, and most of the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and the victim, or that there was a relatively minor accident. In light of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the plaintiff made a disposition to revoke the license for the most harsh among the dispositions under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and that there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. According to Article 7 of the above Directive, the defendant claims that there was an error of law by the accident index of the taxi transport company for the pertinent year (number of accidents / number of times of possession / number of possession / 10; hereinafter the same shall apply) at least 7 days of the accident index of the taxi transport company (number 1/5 suspension of possession). The accident index was prescribed to allow some revocation of the license (number 1/5 number of possession / 5) for nine days of the accident index, and thus, it is legitimate.

(3) According to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which was in force at the time of the above disposition, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of business for a period not exceeding six months or may cancel all or part of the license. 3. The authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 69 of the same Act and Article 32 (8) of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority is delegated to the defendant. Even if the above 12 accidents on the part of the plaintiff fall under subparagraph 3 of Article 31, the above 12 cases are deemed to fall under subparagraph 3 of the above 31, the above order of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on administrative affairs disposal standards, which is only an administrative or administrative order with effect only within or within the administrative agency, and thus, it is clear that there is no reason to cancel the above disposition as a witness's testimony based on the presumption that there is no illegality of the above disposition as a result of the fact that the plaintiff's testimony cannot be cancelled due to the absence of legal grounds for cancellation of the above 6.

(4) If so, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the disposition in this case is reasonable, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon-dae (Presiding Judge)