The legal nature of the Rules (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 811, Mar. 11, 1985) concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business licenses under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

The Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 811, Mar. 11, 1985) is a form of Ordinance, but the nature and contents of the Rules are merely a provision of administrative procedure standards and disposition procedures, etc. concerning revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License, and therefore, they have the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization, which the Minister of Construction and Transportation issued to the administrative agencies and employees, to set the guidelines for exercising their authority and authority, and therefore, the Rules have the nature of administrative orders inside and outside the administrative organization, which are issued by the administrative agencies and employees to set the guidelines for exercising their authority and authority. Therefore, the above Rules are not binding upon the administrative agencies and employees within the administrative organization and are not hard to externally bind the court. Thus, the disposition of revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License cannot be a legitimate disposition as a matter of course

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551 Decided February 28, 1984

Sung Tourism Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Sung-nam City Law Firm Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1011 Decided December 28, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

On March 31, 1985, the court below found that the non-party 1, a driver of the plaintiff's tourist bus, operated the above bus at around 18:10, and proceeded with the second bus at about 40 kilometers per hour in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and changed the bus line to the third line at about 6539, the non-party 1's failure to perform his duty of care as an employee of the driving industry, and the non-party 1, a driver of the above passenger bus's tourist bus's driver's driver's vehicle's negligence, which was 125 cc away from the above passenger bus's driver's duty of care, was not found, and the non-party 1's negligence did not go beyond the above 125 cc driver's duty of care at the time of the above bus's change. The court below found that the non-party 2's negligence did not go beyond the above 5 cc 10 cc alk's previous part of the accident.

With respect to the second ground:

The Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 811, Mar. 11, 1985) is a form of Ordinance, but the nature and contents of the Rules are merely a provision of administrative procedure standards and administrative procedure rules within the administrative agency such as disposition procedure, etc. concerning cancellation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License. Thus, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization that the Minister of Construction and Transportation issued to the administrative agency and employees in order to establish guidelines for exercising his authority and authority. Therefore, the above Rules are not sufficient to detain the administrative agency and employees within the administrative organization and to restrict the court externally. Thus, the disposition such as cancellation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License cannot be a legitimate disposition as a matter of course on the ground that it is in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the above Rules, and whether the disposition is legitimate should be determined depending on whether the provisions and purport of the Automobile Transport Business License Act are appropriate (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu551, Feb.

For the same reason, the court below's decision that the traffic accident in the judgment of the court below does not constitute "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is just, and it cannot be said that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)