1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's driver's license should be revoked pursuant to Article 93 (1) 11 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91 (1) [Attached Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 92 (2) of the same Act, and Article 92 (2) of the same Act, and there is no room for discretion.

According to Article 93 (1) 11 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 92 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the commissioner of a district police agency may revoke a driver's license or suspend the validity of a driver's license within one year according to the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, in cases where a person who has obtained a driver's license uses a motor vehicle, etc., so that the driver's license may be revoked or suspended according to the defendant's discretion, and Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act established pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is merely an internal business practice standard of the administrative agency, and thus, it is not externally binding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4020, Oct. 30, 190). Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiff's driver's license should be revoked immediately without any room for revocation of the driver's license.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.