Where a person who newly acquired a driver's license and continues his/her private taxi business after his/her driver's license was revoked due to drinking driving, the revocation of the driver's license was made on the ground of the revocation of the above driver's license, whether

In a case where a private taxi transport business entity, while driving a private taxi under a blood alcohol concentration of 0.22%, was discovered by a police officer controlling the private taxi and obtained a new driver's license on the same day after the cancellation of the driver's license, and then directly driving the private taxi. In a case where the head of a local government takes an administrative disposition to revoke the relevant driver's license on the grounds of the cancellation of the above driver's license after the head of a local government, taking into account the basic duty of traffic as a driver who must not drive a private taxi for the purpose of establishing traffic order and preventing accidents, and the circumstances where the driver's license was revoked by driving a private taxi with a duty as a private taxi transport business entity who should not drive a private taxi for the purpose of facilitating traffic accident prevention, even if the above private taxi transport business entity already acquired a new driver's license at the time of the relevant disposition of revocation of the driver's license, it cannot be deemed that such disposition of revocation of license does not deviate from the scope of discretionary authority.

Articles 4 and 31(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 2 subparag. 1(f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Articles 41 and 78 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5713 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1594) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu537 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1937) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu218 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2905)

Plaintiff (Attorney Go Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E-Government Market

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu7846 delivered on June 19, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If a cancellation of a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license for private taxi transport business is made, it would infringe the right to obtain benefits already granted to the person who obtained the license. Thus, even if there is a ground for revocation under the law, the exercise of the right to revoke shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantages to be suffered by the other party, only when there is a need for important public interest to justify the infringement of the right to obtain benefits. If it is erroneous, the revocation disposition should be illegal because it constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretion.

According to the facts found by the court below, on October 3, 1994, the plaintiff was found to have been driving a private taxi under the influence of 0.22% of blood alcohol concentration around 16:40% and was found to have been controlled by the police officer on the same day after the driver's license was revoked on January 26, 1996, and continued to operate the transport business in person while driving the private taxi. The defendant issued an administrative disposition revoking the driver's license of this case on February 6, 1997, on the ground that the driver's license of this case was revoked on February 6, 1997. Thus, considering the basic duty as a driver who is required not to drive under the influence of alcohol and the situation that the driver's license was revoked by driving under the influence of alcohol while driving under the influence of alcohol level as a private taxi operator under the influence of influence of alcohol level 0.22%, the plaintiff's revocation of the driver's license of this case cannot be deemed to have been somewhat established in the public interest order 97.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretion, which judged that the disposition of this case's revocation of transportation business was illegal since it deviates from the scope of discretion. The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)