Whether there is a legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition even after the period of suspension of automobile operation expires.

Article 3(3)1 of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act applies to cases where it is deemed that the application of the criteria for dispositions in Articles 3(3)1 and 3(3)1 of the Regulations is remarkably unreasonable, the number of days of the disposition standards may be increased or reduced within the limit of 1/2 of the number of days of the disposition standards in cases of the suspension of operation taking into account the frequency, etc., and the total number of days of the disposition shall not exceed 6 months. In cases where the same violation is re-scheduled within one year from the date of the disposition of the suspension of operation or the suspension of operation, a disposition shall be made in addition to 1/2 of the number of the disposition standards in cases where the same violation is committed within one year from the date of the disposition of the suspension of operation or the suspension of operation of the operation of a taxi driver. Thus, even

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 3(3)1 of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under the provisions of Article 3(3)1 of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Lee Domin-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff

The head of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu14525 delivered on August 18, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the plaintiff was subject to the suspension of operation of the above taxi for 15 days from the defendant from February 8, 1993 to February 22 of the same month and the suspension of operation of the above taxi for 10 days from February 8, 1993 and the revocation of the disposition, and that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition, the above disposition seeking revocation was made with the contents of the suspension of operation and driving qualification of the above taxi for a specified period, and there was no other circumstance to deem that there was a legal interest to seek revocation of the above disposition even after the expiration of the above period.

2. According to the evidence No. 2 (Notification of Administrative Disposition), it is known that the disposition of automobile operation suspension against the plaintiff was taken in accordance with Article 3(2) and attached Table 2 of the Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Business License under the provisions of Articles 31 and 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 31 of the same Act. According to Article 31 of the same Act, the criteria and procedure for the disposition of suspension, etc. of business shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation. Article 3(3)1 of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, where it is deemed that the application of the criteria for disposition of suspension of operation under the provisions of the attached Table 1 and 2 is remarkably unreasonable, the number of days of the disposition can be increased or reduced within the limit of one half of the number of days of the disposition in consideration of the frequency of violation. If the total number of days of the disposition does not exceed six months, non-fixed 1 of the attached Table 2 may seek cancellation of the disposition against the plaintiff's.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the suspension of automobile operation suspension and the suspension of driver qualification, and the arguments are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)