(a) Whether one person has obtained a number of driver's licenses, and whether such revocation or suspension should be treated as separate from one another;

(b) The possibility of partial revocation, where it is divisible even if an administrative disposition is in external shape or part of the subject matter of the disposition can be specified;

(c) The case reversing and returning the part of the judgment of the court below that revoked the whole revocation of the disposition that revoked all three kinds of licenses on the ground that the act of a person with a first-class ordinary, large, and special license under the influence of rackers constitutes grounds for revocation of the above special license and does not constitute grounds for revocation of the above ordinary, large, and large licenses;

A. In principle, one person not only acquires a number of driver’s licenses, but also revoke or suspend the same, it is deemed separate from one another. Even if one person acquires a number of different kinds of driver’s licenses, one driver’s license number is issued and the number of the driver’s license number is integrated and managed, it is merely for the convenience in managing the driver’s license and the number of the driver’s license and the number of the driver’s license and the number of the driver’s license, and it is merely for the convenience in managing the driver’s license and the number of the driver’s license and the number of the driver’

B. Even if an external administrative disposition is a single administrative disposition, if there is decentralization or part of the disposition subject to disposition can be specified, only that part may be revoked, and a partial revocation shall take effect in relation to the cancelled part, and this shall also apply to the revocation or suspension of the driver's license in a case where one person has obtained a number of driver's licenses.

C. The case reversing and returning part of the judgment of the court below on the first-class special license, on the ground that the act of a person holding a first-class general, large, and special license under the influence of rack under the influence of rack is considered to fall under the cause of revocation of the first-class special license, and is not the cause of revocation of the first-class general, large, and large license, and the part on the first-class ordinary and large license among the revocation of the third-class license is revoked on the ground of this, but the plaintiff alleged that the first-class special license was illegal because the part on the first-class special license under the revocation of the first-class special license without examining and

(a)Article 68(2) through (4), Article 70 subparag. 6, Article 72 subparag. 6, Article 78, Article 45, Article 46, and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26(Attachment 14), Article 34(proviso), Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 25(b) of the Guidelines for the Management of Driver’s License. Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 19(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 41 of the Road Act, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act,

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Lee Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Daegu District Police Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu4746 delivered on May 18, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning the Class I special license shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The Road Traffic Act, its Enforcement Decree, and its Enforcement Rule classify the driver's license into the Class I driver's license and the Class II driver's license and the Class I driver's license are divided into the Class I driver's license, the Class II driver's license, the Class II driver's license into the ordinary driver's license, the small driver's license, the special license, and the driver's license. The Class II driver's license are subdivided into the types of driver's license, the qualifications and requirements for acquiring a license, the examination details, etc. according to the type of license (Article 68(2) through (4), Article 70 subparagraph 6, Article 71, Article 45 and Article 46 of the Act, Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] and Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 78 of the Act provides that the driver's license may be revoked or suspended separately in accordance with the type of license.

Therefore, even if one person obtains a number of driver's licenses, he/she shall issue one driver's licenses, and the driver's license number is integrated by using the first one's license number (see the proviso of Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and Article 25 of the Guidelines for the Management of Motor Vehicle Drivers' Licenses), it is merely for the convenience of the management of the driver's licenses and the driver's license numbers, and it cannot be treated as a separate type of licenses, or it is not possible to separately cancel or suspend each license.

There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant, at around 23:20 on October 9, 1994, caused a traffic accident, such as destruction of the above vehicles by driving 5 tons of a racke, which is a 0.12% of blood alcohol concentration in the main condition of 0.12%, while driving 5 tons of a 1st class special vehicle in the traffic signal, 2nd-down, and damaging the above 1st class, large, and special driver's license held by the plaintiff as of October 9, 194, and determined that the above racke can be driven by the above 1st class driver's license but can not be driven by the 1st class driver's license or the large driver's license, and that the 1st class or large driver's license of the 1st class is not related to the above rack driving, and thus the above 3th class driver's license of the 1st class can be revoked by the plaintiff on the ground that the above 1st class driver's license of this case.

However, even in a single administrative disposition, if there is decentralization or part of the disposition subject to the disposition can be specified, only a part can be revoked, and a part of the revocation becomes effective in relation to the revoked part, and the same applies to the revocation or suspension of the driver's license when one has obtained multiple kinds of driver's licenses.

In this case, since the plaintiff's act of causing a traffic accident while driving a rack while under the influence of alcohol constitutes only a ground for revocation of Class I special license among the licenses held by the plaintiff, and does not constitute a ground for revocation of Class I ordinary and large licenses, the part concerning Class I ordinary and large licenses among the dispositions in this case should be revoked on the ground of this ground. However, since the disposition of revocation of Class I ordinary and large licenses is illegal, the disposition of revocation of Class I special licenses is not illegal as a matter of course, and the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of revocation in this case is illegal by abusing from discretion, and therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged about that point, and even in the case of the disposition of revocation of Class I special licenses, it should not be deemed that the court below revoked the whole disposition in this case against the plaintiff on the ground of the reasons stated in its decision without additional review. Unlike this, the judgment of Supreme Court Decision 93Nu429 delivered on May 11, 1993 should be modified within the scope of this decision.

Therefore, in the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below except for the first-class common and large license, there is an error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment, or of misunderstanding the legal principles on partial revocation of administrative disposition, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding Class 1 special license is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-hoon (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)