A. Whether the grounds for disposition can be added or modified in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition on the ground that the administrative agency originally based on the administrative disposition and the basic factual relations are different from the original facts (negative)

B. Whether the grounds for violation of Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the ground for revocation of a license for automobile transport business, and the grounds for violation of the conditions of a license under the direct management, are the same in the factual basis (affirmative)

(a) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency shall not add or modify the grounds for disposition on the grounds that are the basis of the original administrative disposition and the basic factual relations, on the grounds that are not identical, but may add or modify a new ground for disposition to the extent that it is recognized as identical in the basic factual relations.

B. In the case of an administrative disposition revoking a license for automobile transport business with respect to an act of the branch admission, the reason for violating Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the ground for the original revocation, and the reason for violating the conditions of the license, which is the direct operation, is the same in the factual basis.

(a)Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act (general). (b) Articles 26 and 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9299 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong1990, 270) 91Nu3895 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1046) 91Nu3659 delivered on August 18, 192 (Gong192, 272)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu1411 delivered on December 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency shall not add or modify the grounds for disposition on the ground that the grounds for the original administrative disposition are the grounds for the administrative disposition and the basic factual relations are different from the facts without identity, but it shall be deemed that the new grounds may be added or modified to the extent that the identity of the grounds is recognized in the basic factual relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu70, Nov. 8,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's act of operating six buses of this case as a bus of this case cannot be deemed as an act violating the prohibition of use of name under Article 26 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the first administrative disposition of this case, but the defendant imposed a condition that the plaintiff should operate the bus directly in the case of the bus transport business license and the increase of the license, and if the plaintiff violated it, the license and the authorization can be revoked. The plaintiff's act of operating six buses of this case is not only an exercise of the right of revocation reserved at the time of the license and the authorization, but also it violates the above license and the conditions of authorization, and thus constitutes an act subject to the revocation of license under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Automobile Transport Business Act. The above decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for revocation.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In determining whether a disposition of revocation of a license for a motor vehicle transport business under Article 31 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act is a deviation or abuse of discretion, if the purpose of public interest to be achieved under the said Act and the disadvantage suffered by the other party due to a disposition of revocation of license are compared to that of public interest, and if the disadvantage, etc. to be suffered by the other party is enormous, it shall be deemed that such disposition is a deviation or abuse of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4973, Nov. 8, 191; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu350, Feb. 10, 1987).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant conditioned the plaintiff to directly operate the bus transport business and reserved the right of withdrawal at the time of violation in order to secure this condition, but the plaintiff intentionally violated the conditions, and therefore the violation is significant, and there is no possibility that the plaintiff would continue to hold the transport business license for the bus 6 bus in this case. In addition, the plaintiff was imposed a penalty of KRW 7,000,000 on the aggregate due to the violation of the Automobile Transport Business Act, such as the moving of unmanned bus notice through four times, and the fact that the plaintiff carried out the bus 7,00,000 temporary number plate and the bus 2 bus 2 bus 2 bus 3 bus 3 bus transport business without any approval, even if considering the whole circumstances of the plaintiff's assertion, such as the plaintiff's property loss caused by the revocation of the license of the bus transport business in this case, the disposition of revocation of the license of this case constitutes a legitimate exercise of authority within the scope of discretion. In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of discretion.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)