The legal nature of the Rules (Ordinance No. 742 of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 742 of July 31, 1982) concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under Article 31 of the

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. 742 of July 31, 1982) are merely orders issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the standards for administrative affairs of the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the criteria for the revocation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the said Act, and such directives are not binding upon the discretion of the administrative agency guaranteed under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act or bound by the court.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 Decided February 28, 1984 Supreme Court Decision 83Nu676 Decided April 10, 1984

Plaintiff 2, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu135 delivered on March 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 742 of July 31, 1982 (the Rules on Disposition, such as Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act) is a direction of the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the criteria for administrative affairs, and it is nothing more than an order within an administrative organization, issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which is a superior administrative agency, to direct the internal exercise of authority and duties of the administrative agency, and does not have the nature of the laws and regulations, and therefore, the provisions of such a direction do not bind the discretion of the administrative agency guaranteed under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, nor are bound by the court under the provisions of such a direction. Thus

2. Even if the grounds such as the cancellation of a license for the business as stipulated in Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act arise, when the cancellation of license is made, it shall be compared and bridge the disadvantage suffered by the other party due to the public interest and the disposition under the Automobile Transport Business Act which the grounds for the cancellation of license are based on the examination of the legal purport of the grounds such as the cancellation

In this view, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the disposition of the revocation of the license is a huge disadvantage to the plaintiff due to the disposition of the revocation of the license, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exercise of discretionary power, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and it is groundless in that there is no error of law as to the exercise of discretionary power.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)