Whether a penalty under the Automobile Transport Business Act for a private taxi that has passed the bus exclusive lane may exceed the penalty under the Road Traffic Act (affirmative)

If a private taxi, which is a business vehicle subject to the Automobile Transport Business Act, passes along the bus exclusive lane, a private taxi which is not a route bus, the penalty surcharge under the Automobile Transport Business Act may be imposed on the driver of the vehicle concerned, and even if the penalty surcharge is more than the penalty under the Road Traffic Act, the legislative purpose of the Road Traffic Act (safety and smooth transportation) and the legislative purpose of the Automobile Transport Business Act (the establishment of the order concerning the automobile transport business and the comprehensive development of the automobile transport) are different from each other, it cannot be said that it violates the equity or constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

Article 23, Article 31-2 (1) and (2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 3 (1) [Attachment Table 1] 10 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 2 (3) [Attachment Table 1] of the Automobile Transport Rules 2, Article 13-2 (1) and (2), Article 117 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 73 [Attachment Table 2] 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

Escenci

Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition imposing penalty surcharge of KRW 100,00 on the plaintiff on March 10, 1997 that exceeds KRW 40,000 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts shall be recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 4, unless there is a dispute between the parties or by each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2.

A. On November 22, 1996, the Plaintiff was a person running a private taxi transport business, and was discovered by driving a private taxi at Seoul 3Ha2519, Seoul 3Ha2519 on November 22, 1996, along the bus exclusive lanes located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seo-dong.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100,00 on the Plaintiff by applying Article 31-2 of the Automobile Transport Business Act on March 10, 1997 and Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 10(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and relevant statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that it is against the Road Traffic Act to impose a penalty of 40,000 won for a general passenger car in violation of the bus exclusive lane, and to impose a penalty of 100,000 won for a commercial vehicle by applying the Road Traffic Act to the Automobile Transport Business Act. Thus, the part exceeding 40,000 won among the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

According to Article 31(1)1 and the main sentence of Article 31-2(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, where a trucking business operator violates the same Act or an order or disposition under the same Act, a penalty surcharge of not more than five million won may be imposed in lieu of a business suspension disposition under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 3(2) of the same Act and Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 10(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a penalty surcharge of a violation of an order or order issued for the establishment of safe and transportation order, the improvement of transportation service order, and the performance of entrusted duties by the Cooperative is set at two million won in case of a private taxi. In addition, Article 23 of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that a trucking business operator may delegate the matters concerning transportation facilities of the automobile transport business, other transportation safety, and safety of passengers and convenience for shippers or shippers, Article 2(3) of the Automobile Transport Business Regulations provides that a trucking business operator shall observe the order of loading and operating passengers and freight [1].

Meanwhile, Article 13-2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of Si/Gun may, when it is particularly necessary for the smooth flow of route buses, install exclusive bus lanes on roads after consultation with the commissioner of the district police agency or the chief of the police station. Paragraph 2 provides that vehicles and horses other than route buses shall not use exclusive bus lanes under the provisions of Paragraph 1. Article 117 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 73 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 73 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act provides that penalties shall be imposed in cases where automobiles pass exclusive bus lanes in general.

(c) Markets:

Matters to be observed in the automobile transport order provided for in Article 2(3) [Attachment 1] of the Automobile Transport Regulations are based on Article 23 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and fall under "an order based on this Act" provided for in Article 31(1)1 of the same Act and "an order or order issued for the establishment of safety and transport order, the improvement of service order, and the performance of entrusted duties by the association" provided for in Article 2(3) [Attachment 1] 10(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In addition, the violation of the automobile transport rules provided for in Article 2(3) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Automobile Transport Regulations include cases where vehicles other than route buses pass along the bus exclusive lanes.

Therefore, in a case where a vehicle, which is subject to the Automobile Transport Business Act and is not a route bus, passes through the bus exclusive lane, a penalty surcharge under the Automobile Transport Business Act may be imposed on the vehicle operator concerned, and even if the penalty surcharge is more than the penalty under the Road Traffic Act, the legislative purpose of the Road Traffic Act (safety and smooth traffic) and the legislative purpose of the Automobile Transport Business Act (the establishment of order concerning the automobile transport business and the comprehensive development of the automobile transport) are different from each other, it cannot be said that it violates the equity or constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim-soo (Presiding Judge)