The case holding that the revocation of driver's license constitutes an abuse of discretionary power and an illegal disposition beyond its limits.

The case holding that the above disposition is an abuse of discretionary authority or an illegal disposition exceeding its limit on the ground that the cancellation of a driver's license is not against the principle of profit and bridge because it is too much disadvantage that a driver will suffer, rather than the realization of the public interest to be achieved by the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the driver's license is revoked on the ground that the driver's license is revoked only because it is discovered to a police officer and did not cause any accident due to drinking driving, and the driver's license is revoked.

Articles 41(1) and 78 subparag. 8 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4827 of Jan. 5, 1995); Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 16] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance No. 644 of Mar. 25, 1995); Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4055 decided Nov. 24, 1989 (Gong1990,156) 90Nu4297 decided Oct. 16, 1990 (Gong1990,2305) 90Nu4822 decided Oct. 30, 1990 (Gong1990,247) 91Nu1417 decided May 10, 1991 (Gong191,1650) 91Nu2083 decided Jun. 11, 1991 (Gong191,1932)

Plaintiff

Daegu District Police Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu5824 delivered on June 15, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the litigation performer are examined.

The court below held that the disposition of this case violates the principle of profit bridge because it is too much disadvantage that the plaintiff will suffer, rather than the realization of public interest to achieve under the Road Traffic Act, and thus it constitutes an illegal disposition that abuse of discretion or exceeds its limits. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary power as to the cancellation of driver's license as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The judgment below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary power as to the cancellation of driver's license as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)