Whether a driver's license is revoked on the ground of failure to conduct an aptitude test but the driver's license is not notified of such fact.

Even if a person who has obtained a driver's license did not take a regular test within the specified period, the driver's license shall not immediately lose its validity, but only is merely a ground for revocation or suspension of the driver's license, and if the driver's license is revoked for this reason, it shall be notified pursuant to the provisions of Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the cancellation of the driver's license shall not take effect during the absence of such notification. Therefore, the Plaintiff's revocation of the driver's license shall not take effect on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take the regular test and did not receive it from the Plaintiff's former address. In addition,

Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The revocation disposition made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on February 24, 1989 (license number Seoul 88-671972-00) shall be revoked.

The use of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Article 8-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1665, Mar. 24, 1983; Presidential Decree No. 2014, Mar. 28, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Mar. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Mar. 29, 201; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Mar. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Feb. 29, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 29, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Feb. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20219, Feb. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 1, 2012>

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff (1) operated a motor vehicle on November 3, 198 without the plaintiff's driving license. However, the plaintiff is driving the motor vehicle in Seoul (motor vehicle number omitted) owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was in violation of the above signal while the plaintiff was demanded to present the driver's license from the police officer on March 24, 1983 on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that he did not own the driver's license at that time, the above order was imposed on the plaintiff by presenting the driver's license of this case on March 24, 1983, and the defendant is only the plaintiff's non-driving without the driver's license of this case. In addition, if the person who obtained the driver's license did not obtain the driver's license of this case within the period of the regular aptitude test without the reason for revocation or suspension of the driver's license of this case, which is merely a reason for the cancellation of the driver's license of this case, and thus the plaintiff's driver's license of this case cannot be notified to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above 9-1, 1, 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 7-2, and 8-2 (No. 9-2)-1 of the above 9-1 of the 9-2 of the 9-2 of the 9-2 of the 19-2 of the 9-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 19-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 9-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 9-2 of the 9-2 of the 9-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 9-2 of the 9-2 of the 1-2-2 of the 1-2-3-2 of the 1-6-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 1-6-2 of the 1-6-2 of the 1-6-3 driver's license without any dispute. The plaintiff's license was found to have the effect of the 1-6-3-1-3-3 driver's license. The 1-2 of the 9-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 1-3-2 of the 1-3-2.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case for the above illegal grounds is reasonable, and therefore, the lawsuit costs are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)