Where a disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge on a business operator who violates the conditions of a license for automobile transportation business is illegal in excess of the statutory maximum amount, the scope of revocation

Since discretionary power was granted to a business operator who violates the conditions of a license for motor vehicle transport business, whether the administrative agency orders the suspension of business as administrative sanctions, whether the penalty surcharge is imposed, and if the penalty surcharge is imposed, the amount to be imposed, the court should only cancel the entire limit, and if the penalty surcharge is illegal in excess of the limit stipulated by the law, the court shall not cancel only the part exceeding the limit or the part exceeding the reasonable limit recognized by the court (the case reversing the judgment of the court below that revoked only the part exceeding the amount exceeding 100,000 won among the pertinent disposition imposing the penalty surcharge of KRW 1,00,000 is illegal as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power).

Articles 19 and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 31(1)1 and Article 31-2(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 5(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu2 delivered on September 8, 1982 (Gong1982, 1092), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4840 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2586), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1077 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2432)

Plaintiff

Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu23527 delivered on December 12, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered the plaintiff to secure a garage from around September 19, 1987 to secure it. The plaintiff is a person who drives a private taxi (automobile registration number 1 omitted) with a private taxi transport business license on November 16, 1992. From October 18, 1993 to Nowon-gu (Road 1 omitted), the plaintiff entered into a garage contract with the non-party 1 operating the ○○ Parking Lot and used the above parking lot as the plaintiff's private taxi garage, but the above parking lot was closed on February 28, 1996 on the ground of the redevelopment project. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to secure a garage by 0th of June 30 of the same year, but the plaintiff failed to report it to the defendant by 0th of August 19, 199, and it constitutes a violation of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the 10th of the 10th of the 196th of the 10th of the 196th of the 196th of the same year.

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the above act of the plaintiff constitutes subparagraph 5 (e) of Article 3 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is reasonable. However, since the administrative agency's order to suspend the business as an administrative sanction, whether to impose a penalty surcharge, and if it is to impose a penalty surcharge, the discretionary power has been granted as to the amount of the penalty surcharge, the court can only cancel the entire limit, and the court can not cancel only the part in excess of the limit or the part in excess of the reasonable part (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1077 delivered on July 27, 1993). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the cancellation of a penalty surcharge, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)