Limited Partnership Partnership Corporation (Attorney Kang Ho-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

November 6, 1979

The defendant's order to suspend the operation of the vessel from May 10, 1979 to November 9 of the same year against the plaintiff on April 25, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. According to the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 without dispute in its establishment and arguments, the plaintiff company is running the above business upon obtaining permission from the defendant on December 28, 197 for the type of business from the defendant, and the defendant ordered the plaintiff company to suspend the above business for six months from May 10, 197 to November 9 of the same year, and there is no counter-proof.

2. The defendant litigation performer's ground for the above administrative disposition is that the non-party 1's vessel, which is the deck, violated the Customs Act by aiding and abetting the non-party 548 non-party 1 to the plaintiff company's vessel (the market price 22,976,50 won) on February 18, 197, and thus, the administrative disposition was lawful on the basis of Article 26 of the Harbor Transport Business Act, Article 114 of the Prime Minister's Directive, subparagraph 44 of the Port Authority's Directive, and conditions of business permission. The plaintiff's attorney does not have any legal ground for revoking or suspending harbor transport incidental business due to a violation of the Customs Act committed by a harbor transport auxiliary business operator under the Harbor Transport Business Act, and even if it is not so, the defendant's order or disposition that the plaintiff company already resigned before the violation of the above Customs Act, and thus, was unlawful.

3. In light of Article 26 (3) of the Harbor Transport Business Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the harbor transport auxiliary business, the head of the port office provides that "if a harbor transport business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he may order the suspension of the business for a specified period or cancel the license for the relevant harbor transport business" and subparagraph 5 of Article 179 of the Customs Act provides that "if a harbor transport business operator is punished under Article 182 of the same Act, the head of the port office may order the suspension of the business for a specified period or cancel the license for the relevant harbor transport business." Thus, in order for the harbor transport ancillary business operator to order the suspension of the business or cancel the license for the relevant business, it is evident that the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has not been punished under Article 179 (182) of the Customs Act for a violation of the provisions of Article 176 (3) of the same Act, the representative or an employee of the corporation, or the Governor of the Korea Customs Service, who has been punished for the violation of the provisions of the above Article 14 of the Customs Act.

4. If so, the defendant's claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's claim is justifiable and reasonable, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the part of the losing defendant.

November 20, 1970

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)