In a case where the commissioner of the competent district police agency revoked Gap's second-class driver's license on the ground that Gap driven a motor vehicle without a second-class driver's license in addition to a second-class driver's license, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of revocation of driver's license under the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the act of drinking driving of Gap's second-class driver'

Article 93 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act

Plaintiff

The Seoul Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu17993 decided November 25, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff’s second-class driver’s license was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of driving a second-class driver’s license without any other driver’s license except for the second-class driver’s license owned by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of driving the second-class driver’s license did not constitute a ground for revocation of the second-class driver’s license owned by the Plaintiff.

2. In principle, one person's permission to drive a passenger vehicle in this case as well as the revocation or suspension of one person's permission to drive a passenger vehicle in this case, but if the plaintiff's act of driving a passenger vehicle in this case constitutes a ground for revocation of Class 1 driver's license, Class 1 driver's license to drive a passenger vehicle, Class 2 driver's license to drive a passenger vehicle, and Class 2 driver's license to drive a passenger vehicle in this case, if he owns a driver's license to drive a passenger vehicle in this case, the cancellation of each above license to drive a passenger vehicle in this case includes the purpose of prohibiting the driving of a motor vehicle, as a matter of course, and thus, it can be revoked even for a driver's license (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9672 delivered on November 25, 1994). Thus, even if the plaintiff did not have any above license to drive a passenger vehicle in this case, the plaintiff's disposition in this case should be revoked since it constitutes a ground for revocation of a class 2 driver's license in this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of revocation of driver's license under the Road Traffic Act, on different premises.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)