A. On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiff driven construction machinery B (former) at a drinking level of 0.1% of alcohol concentration on blood alcohol level around 21:50 on July 2, 2007, and entered the direction of the public service center in the direction of the Dong-dong Police Station located in Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon to the front road on the front of the Dong-dong fire station located in the Dong-dong, Daejeon-dong, and did not collision the front right part of C’s D previously chartered bus that was being driven on the left side of the vehicle in the direction of the vehicle and did not take relief measures, and did not inflict injury on three others, such as C.

B. On August 28, 2007, the defendant applied Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act based on the violation that the plaintiff caused a traffic accident under the influence of alcohol as above. On the ground that the plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff revoked the plaintiff's first-class large driver's license as of September 9, 2007 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") and filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case on September 5, 2007.

C. After that, on October 26, 2007, the defendant changed the reason for the disposition of this case to the effect that the reason for the disposition of this case did not take necessary measures or report even though it caused damages to the injured person, and accordingly, the applicable provisions of the disposition of this case changed to Article 93 (1) 5 of the Road Traffic Act.

D. The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed on March 6, 2008, and the ruling authority determined that the grounds for the disposition was not taken after the occurrence of the accident under Article 93(1)5 of the Road Traffic Act according to the changes made to October 26, 2007.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, evidence 4-1 through 20, Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, while the plaintiff's operating machine is not a driver's license under the Road Traffic Act, it is illegal to revoke the first class driver's license under the Road Traffic Act, which is irrelevant to the driver's license for the reason that the driver's operating machine causes a traffic accident.

Second, when considering various circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff is making a business registration with his trade name and supporting the wife and his children by driving a while driving a while driving a while driving a motor vehicle in this case, after completing the operation of the motor vehicle at the time of driving a motor vehicle in this case and driving a motor vehicle, he gets contact with the ship's ship engaged in the same type of business in F while driving a motor vehicle in the same line of business and driving a motor vehicle, it is an illegal disposition that deviates from discretion and abused the motor vehicle.

B. Determination

First, the first argument is examined.

Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency may revoke a driver's license or suspend the validity of a driver's license within the extent of one year according to the standards set by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs if a person who has obtained a driver's license (excluding a student license; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 93 (1) 5 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "when the person fails to take necessary measures or to report under Article 54 (1) or (2) after killing or injuring a person due to an accident involving traffic," and Article 54 (1) of the same Act provides that "the driver or other crew of the vehicle shall immediately stop the vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties" and Article 2 (1) 16 (a) (2) of the same Act provides that construction machinery shall be included in "motor vehicle" under the Road Traffic Act

Therefore, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to take necessary measures while driving a machine, which is a construction machinery, would violate the provisions of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, under the main sentence of Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, the Plaintiff is driving a construction machinery operator license with the Mayor/Do Governor’s license pursuant to the main sentence of Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act. Article 28 of the same Act provides that when the Plaintiff causes a serious accident due to intention or negligence during the operation of the construction machinery due to the cancellation or suspension of a construction machinery pilot license (Article 5) and Article 27-2 of the same Act (Article 8) provides for the cancellation or suspension of a construction machinery operator license with respect to the operation of the construction machinery under drinking condition and the accident that occurred during the operation

In addition, even in light of the legal principle that one person's license is not only the case where one person obtains a number of driver's licenses, but also the case where one person cancels or suspends it, even if the plaintiff did not take measures to avoid an accident involving another person in violation of the provisions of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act while driving a machine that can drive as an operator's license for construction machinery, the driver's license that can drive the vehicle with the center of the vehicle provided for the above traffic accident can be cancelled because it is related to one another. However, since the first-class driver's license for large vehicles cannot drive the heavy vehicles, the first-class driver's license for large vehicles is not related to the first-class driver's license for large vehicles, so the Do governor may cancel the operator's license for construction machinery pursuant to Article 28 (5) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, apart from the fact that the Do governor may cancel the operator's license for construction machinery.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.