Whether the revocation of a driver's license can be revoked for Class I driver's license where a person with a Class I special, large, and general license drives a vehicle that can be operated only with a Class I special license (negative)

On July 1, 1995, Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act was amended to enable the driver to drive a vehicle that can be operated with a Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license, but the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license can be operated with a Class I driver's license for the Class II driver's license, but it can not be operated with a Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license. Therefore, the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license or the large driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license for the Class I driver's license is not related to the one's own license for the Class I driver's license.

Article 78 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu850 delivered on November 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3812), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4992 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2399), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu959 delivered on November 8, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3599), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17578 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 9755), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15176 delivered on March 11, 197 (Gong197, 1122)

Plaintiff

The commissioner of Chungcheongnam-do Police Agency

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu2048 delivered on December 20, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff concerning the Class I driver's license and Class I driver's license is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was exempted from the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's.

However, even if Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act was amended on July 1, 1995, Tracler can drive with the first-class special driver's license, but it can not be operated with the first-class ordinary license or large driver's license, the plaintiff is driving the said Tracler only with the special driver's license, among his own licenses, and the first-class ordinary license or large driver's license is not related to the above Tracler's license. Thus, the plaintiff's above lacing act can only be a ground for revocation of the special driver's license among the licenses held by the plaintiff, and it shall not be a ground for revocation of the first-class ordinary license or large driver's license (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu850 delivered on November 16, 195).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the first-class driver's license, the first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license are revoked on the ground of the first-class driver's license and the first-class driver's license, under the premise that the first-class driver's license, the first-class driver's license and the first-class driver's license are related to each other in terms of the type of motor vehicles that can drive, the first-class driver's license and the first-class

2. The plaintiff filed an appeal against Class 1 of the judgment of the court below regarding the Class 1 of the special license, but there is no indication of the grounds in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Class I driver's license and Class I driver's license is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)