(a) Whether the business is partially suspended and the suspension of operation, indicating only the operating system without specifying the vehicle number;

(b)the partial suspension of transportation business and the suspension of operation and the existence or absence of a specific agency described only in the column of the enforcement officer;

A. In the instant disposition of partial suspension and suspension of operation of transportation business, even if only three vehicles are displayed in the vehicle operating the route of the transport-Viewing system, the purport is that the vehicle that operates the above route among the vehicle owned by the Plaintiff is limited to two vehicles, and the partial suspension of operation in the route type of business is sufficient to specify the operation system only, and thus, it cannot be said that the above disposition is not specified.

B. Even if the part of the disposition of partial suspension of transportation business or the disposition of partial suspension of operation itself states that the execution officer's statement is "gulgsan", it is not possible to execute the disposition because the above disposition does not specify the execution officer's statement.

(a) Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 3(1)5(b) of the Rules on the Cancellation, etc. of Business License; Articles 31 and 32 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Articles 4, 8 and 9 of the Rules on the Cancellation, etc. of Business License;

Attorney Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu258 delivered on June 7, 1983

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

We examine the Defendant’s first ground for appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that, among the vehicles belonging to the plaintiff company as of September 29, 1982, the three vehicles operated by the defendant operating the transmitting-Viewing system route of the plaintiff company, the suspension of operation for 50 days and 10 days, and that the vehicle belonging to the plaintiff company operated on the above route is only two vehicles, and that the vehicle belonging to the plaintiff company is operated on the above route, and that the above vehicle is partially suspended and operated, without specifying the number of the vehicle subject to the disposition, is only stated as "the suspension of operation" without specifying the number of the vehicle subject to the disposition, and that the execution officer's letter is only stated as "Sulsan," and that the three vehicles subject to the suspension of operation and the suspension of operation are not specified as the execution officer, and thus the execution of the disposition of this case is impossible, and its serious

2. However, in relation to the specification of a vehicle subject to disposal, even though only three vehicles are sent to the vehicle subject to disposal in the health stand, the partial suspension and the suspension of operation of the business in the instant case, and only three vehicles operating the transit system, as recognized by the lower court, it was erroneous for the Plaintiff-owned vehicles to indicate the vehicle subject to disposal as three vehicles if the vehicle operating the above route is only two vehicles, as determined by the lower court. However, the above disposition is not deemed to be an object of the two vehicles in the above route, and it cannot be said that the object subject to disposal is not specified (In addition, according to Article 3(1)5 of the former or the Automobile Transport Business Act, the suspension of the business refers to the suspension of the use of all vehicles operating the operating system of the violating vehicle in the business sector, and therefore, in the partial suspension of the business, it is sufficient to specify only the operating system, and there is no need to specify the target vehicle).

Next, according to Article 32 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and Articles 4, 8 and 9 of the Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Business License under the provisions of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the execution officer's disposition of partial suspension of operation and the suspension of operation can not be deemed to be impossible because it did not specify the execution officer in the disposition of partial suspension of operation or the suspension of operation itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the execution officer's statement is not specified in the disposition of this case.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the specification and invalidation of administrative disposition, thereby adversely recognizing that the defects of administrative disposition cannot be caused, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal on this point are with merit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)