(a) Legal nature of the transport instruction No. 680 (Guidelines for Disposition concerning Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act);

(b) Profits to be compared and sentenced when a cancellation of license is made pursuant to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; and

(a) No. 680 (Guidelines for Disposition on Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act) is merely a direction of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the standards for administrative affairs which cannot be deemed to have the nature of the laws and regulations, and the direction provisions are not binding upon or bound by the court’s discretion, which is guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

B. Even if a ground for cancellation of license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act occurred, the disposition of cancellation of license shall be compared with the public interest under the Automobile Transport Business Act and the disadvantage suffered by the other party by the disposition of cancellation of license.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu304 Delivered on November 23, 1982

Plaintiff 2, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu27 delivered on April 27, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

No. 680 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation's Directives No. 680 (the Guidelines for Disposition on Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act) cannot be deemed to have the nature of laws and regulations, and the provisions of the Directives are merely nothing more than those of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the standards for administrative affairs, and thus they are bound by the administrative agencies' discretion guaranteed by Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act or bound by the court's order. Thus, there is no reason for this issue. Thus, even if the revocation of the license was made under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, when the reasons for the revocation of the license were examined as the reasons for the revocation of the license, the court below's decision on the grounds for the revocation of the license shall be balanced by comparing the other party's disadvantage due to the public interest under the Automobile Transport Business Act and the revocation of the license. In light of the contents of the violation of this case's disposition, the plaintiff's disadvantage suffered due to the revocation of the license of this case is unreasonable and there is no violation of law of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of discretion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)