Whether a disposition to stop the operation of a person subject to criminal punishment for the same reason is against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy (negative)

As a factual basis for the suspension of operation, a motor vehicle transport business operator is already subject to criminal punishment, and the suspension of operation based on Article 31 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act of the defendant (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor) is not against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy.

Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu252 delivered on July 21, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

As a factual basis for the disposition suspending the operation against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has already been subject to criminal punishment such as the theory of lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's administrative disposition is against the principle of res judicata. The argument is that the plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment for the same factual basis before the suspension of operation by the defendant based on Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and that the defendant's administrative disposition is against the principle of res judicata because the plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment for the same factual basis, and that the judgment of the court below is unreasonable on the ground that the reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's claim to nullify the invalidity of the plaintiff's discretionary power, and that the decision of the court below is groundless. The appeal is dismissed,

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)