(a) Criteria for determining whether the revocation of a license for automobile transport business is appropriate;

(b) The case holding that the revocation of a personal taxi business license, which is the sole means of living of seven dependents on the ground of the act of acting as an agent, is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power;

A. Although the rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act are forms of Ordinance, the nature and contents of such rules are merely a provision of the business process rules within the administrative agency, and thus, they are not externally binding upon the relevant administrative agency or employees within the administrative agency. Thus, even if the disposition such as cancellation, etc. of a business license satisfies the standards prescribed by the above rules, such disposition cannot be deemed legitimate, and the legality of such disposition shall be determined according to whether it conforms to the provisions and purport of the Automobile Transport Business Act, not the above rules.

B. In the revocation of a license for a motor vehicle transport business, the public interest under the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, which is to be carried out by the revocation of a license, and the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the revocation of the license, shall be compared and balanced, and the time of the plaintiff's vicarious driving for the first time is about 7 hours and 30 minutes, and the time of his/her vicarious driving is only about 7 hours and 70 minutes, and there is no accident in the course of his/her vicarious driving. Meanwhile, while the plaintiff was under a circumstance that he/she was unable to support his/her wife and his/her father due to the death of his/her wife and her three children, he/she took over a private taxi with money as security and maintained his/her livelihood with his/her own income, but he/she was living with his/her own income, but the above revocation disposition was too harsh than that of his/her offense, if his/her family's livelihood was extremely difficult.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 Decided February 28, 1984 83Nu378 Decided March 13, 1984

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu231 delivered on March 13, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

The Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 724 of July 31, 1982) are in the form of Ordinance, but the nature and contents of the Rules are merely a provision of administrative rules within the administrative agency such as the processing standards and disposition procedures concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of Business License. Thus, this is in the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the purpose of setting guidelines for the exercise of official authority and authority against the administrative agency and employees. Thus, the Rules are not binding upon the administrative agency and employees within the administrative organization, and it is not a legitimate disposition of cancellation, etc. of Business License. Thus, it is not appropriate to determine whether the disposition conforms to the above Rules, but it is appropriate to the regulations of the Automobile Transport Business Act and its purport (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu5138, Feb. 28, 1984; 200Nu3837, Mar. 38, 19884).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's revocation disposition on the ground that the plaintiff's revocation disposition on the ground that the plaintiff's revocation disposition on the ground that it is necessary to compare and balance the public interest under the Automobile Transport Business Act and the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff who is the other party by the revocation disposition on the revocation of the license, and that the plaintiff first started the plaintiff's vicarious driving of the case. The plaintiff's vicarious driving time is about seven hours and thirty minutes, and there was no accident during the vicarious driving. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's vicarious driving time is the majority with his wife and three children, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to gather his parents of the old age while looking at his wife and three children, and support his wife to his non-employed. The court below's decision that the defendant's vicarious driving of the case did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's discretionary power, but it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's vicarious driving, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)