(a) Legal nature and effect of the regulations concerning the disposition, such as the cancellation, etc. of a business license under the provisions of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) Whether the revocation of a license for motor vehicle transportation business on the ground of a proxy driving per day exceeds the scope of discretion;

A. The Rules on the Disposition, such as Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 724 of July 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 authority and authority, and it cannot be viewed as having the nature of legal order, so the above Rules cannot be binding upon the administrative agencies' discretion guaranteed under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

B. In order to revoke a license for automobile transport business, it should be determined by weighing and balancing the needs of public interest to be revoked and the disadvantages suffered by the parties due to revocation. In this case, the personal taxi business under the license for automobile transport business was the only means of living of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was under driving by proxy in violation of the license conditions, which was due to the reason that the plaintiff was unable to drive by proxy for one week due to the fact that the plaintiff was under driving in violation of the license conditions, and the period of driving by proxy was too limited to one day and there was no accident during that period, considering all the circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff's violation of the above license conditions was under the control of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the measure of choosing the disposition of cancellation of license for the business which was the largest of the sanctions under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu260 delivered on March 13, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

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

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu817 delivered on March 2, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Rules concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a 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 orders inside the administrative organization, which was issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in accordance with the guidelines for exercising their authority and authority, and cannot be viewed as having the nature of legal orders like the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551, Feb. 28, 1984). Therefore, the above rules cannot be binding upon the discretion of the administrative agencies guaranteed by Article 31

We cannot accept the decision of the court below that the defendant's revocation of the driver's license of the taxi transport business of this case constitutes abuse of discretionary power under the premise that the above rule is a legal order binding upon the discretion of the administrative agency.

With respect to the second ground:

The judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the defendant had to make a decision on whether to revoke the license of the automobile transport business of this case by comparing and comparing the public interest needs for the revocation of the license of this case and disadvantage to the party. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the facts that the private taxi business of this case was the only means of living of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff's act of driving in violation of the license of this case was conducted in violation of the conditions of the transport business of this case was due to the fact that the plaintiff was under the circumstance that he was unable to drive for one week because he was under the condition that he was under the condition that he was under the condition that he could not drive for one week due to the nuclear escape from the essential signboards and the nuclear escape, and there was no accident during that period. In light of all circumstances, the defendant's act of driving on behalf of the plaintiff was limited to one day and there was no accident during that period, it was an illegal disposition against the plaintiff's violation of the above license of this case.

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