Attorney Kang Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

For the lectures and literature of the litigation performer;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. On January 8, 2009, the part concerning the first-class license (e.g., the first-class license) license is suspended until the instant judgment becomes final and conclusive. On January 8, 2009, the revocation of the license for the Plaintiff on January 8, 2009 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. On April 3, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 ordinary car driving licenses, Class 1 special car driving licenses on April 2, 1993, Class 1 large-scale driving licenses on April 10, 1993, and Class 1 large-scale driving licenses on April 10, 193.B. On January 8, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on September 8, 2009 by the Plaintiff on September 18, 2008, 06B ****** 00 while driving a dump truck on September 18, 2008, causing traffic accidents that cause injuries requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment and escape without taking on-site relief measures or reporting measures (Article 89-9**-9-91).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) At the time of the occurrence of the above accident, the Plaintiff moved about 50 meters of the Plaintiff’s dump truck to approximately 50 meters, and confirmed that the victim Kim 00 did not move about her dump truck to her Kim00, and Kim 00 left the scene of the accident to repair the vehicle to be separated from the hospital after getting out of 119 ambulances, so there was no injury to Kim 00 and there was no escape without taking relief measures.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff is engaged in driving business and maintains the livelihood of a woman who is a father of old age and a disabled person. Considering this point, the Defendant’s disposition that the Plaintiff cancels all kinds of three kinds of driver’s licenses owned by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority.

B. Relevant legislation

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. In principle, the determination on the legitimacy of revocation of three simultaneous licenses is not only the case where a number of driver's licenses is obtained, but also the case where the revocation is made separately. Even if a number of driver's licenses is obtained, one driver's licenses is issued and the number of driver's licenses is integrated and managed by using the first driver's licenses number, it is merely for the convenience in managing the driver's licenses and the number of driver's licenses, and it cannot be treated as separate from each other, nor can it be executed separately by cancelling each license individually, and it does not naturally affect the effect of revocation of another driver's licenses by revocation of a specific license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du5425, Sept. 26, 200). Therefore, there is no legal basis for revoking the license other than the license that can be driven by a motor vehicle as at the time of the act of violation.

The disposition of this case is as follows: (a) dump trucks are operated by the plaintiff while driving a dump truck and not taking relief measures; (b) according to Article 80(2) of the Road Traffic Act and attached Table 18 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, dump trucks can be operated with a Class 1 large license, but can not be operated with a Class 1 special license; (c) since a traffic accident caused by a dump truck cannot be a ground for revocation of the above license because they are not related to a Class 1 special (e.g., a dump truck driver's license, the part on the Class 1 special (dump) license of this case is unlawful.

Meanwhile, although dump trucks cannot be driven by a Class I ordinary license, their nature as well as the date of the dump license, a Class I large license holder shall be able to drive all vehicles that can be driven by a Class I ordinary license holder as well as the date of the dump truck's license. Thus, the cancellation of a Class I large license includes the purpose of prohibiting a class I ordinary license holder from driving all vehicles able to drive. Thus, the driver's license of these vehicles is related to each other. Thus, the grounds for cancellation of license due to a vehicle able to drive by a Class I large license can be revoked even by the Class I ordinary license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17578, Feb. 28, 1997).

D. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 5 and 16, the Plaintiff did not take measures, such as subtracting Kim00 from the vehicle even though he/she transferred his/her lap trucks due to the above traffic accident, and the victim voluntarily reported 119 and left the taxi site without leaving his/her lap trucks at the hospital, leaving the taxi site. The Plaintiff did not contact or personal information with Kim 00 and returned to the hospital because the police did not have any contact or personal information at the time of the accident site. The Plaintiff’s personal information was confirmed by the phone number stated in the lap truck left by the Plaintiff. In light of these facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not take measures to prevent the Plaintiff from causing the traffic accident and sustained injuries to Kim 100, and the Plaintiff’s act of escaping without taking measures to rescue the victim’s lap trucks since it did not take measures to ensure the safety of the victim’s lap trucks, etc. after being issued a large number of traffic accidents.

3. According to the data revealed in the records, the suspension of the execution of Class 1 license among the dispositions in this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent the damage that may be caused to the plaintiff due to the execution of Class 1 license for the part concerning the revocation of the license of this case, and there is no other data to recognize that the suspension of the execution of the part concerning Class 1 license for the disposition in this case constitutes a case which may have a significant impact on public welfare due to the suspension of the execution of the part concerning the Class 1 license. Thus, the execution of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case as to Class 1 license for the Class 1 special (e.g., the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-tae

Judges Park So-young

Attached Form