Where the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-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 second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license

The case holding that in case where the revocation of 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 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 second-class driver's license is possible, but 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 is possible, but 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 first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license is not relevant to the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license

Article 78 (1) 12 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 [Attached Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17578 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 975) Supreme Court Decision 98Du1031 delivered on March 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1210) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du3017 Delivered on December 23, 2004 (Gong2004Du12452 Delivered on March 11, 2005)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Seoul Local Police Agency

Seoul Down District Court Decision 2004Gudan8715 delivered on December 29, 2004

September 7, 2005

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order of revocation shall be revoked.

The defendant's revocation disposition of driver's license on September 22, 2004 with respect to Class I Special License (Baler) and Class I Special License (Baer) shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one part, and the other part shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the first-class license for the plaintiff on September 22, 2004 (the chief of the office, etc. described as October 9, 2004, but appears to be a clerical error) shall be revoked each of the first-class license, first-class ordinary license, first-class special license (the first-class license), first-class special license (the first-class license), first-class license (the first-class license (the

1. Details of the disposition;

The date of disposition of decentralization: September 22, 2004

Addition disposition content: Revocation of driver's license [the driver's license of Class 1 large, Class 1 ordinary, Class 1 special (Traler), Class 1 special (Traler), Class 2 motor vehicle] (the date of occurrence of effect; hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") (the date of occurrence of effect; hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case")

on August 30, 2004: On the road in front of the Republic of Korea 20, the driver was under the influence of 0.107% of blood alcohol level (motor vehicle registration number omitted) on the road in front of the Republic of Korea 236, the driver was under the influence of 0.107% of alcohol level (motor vehicle registration number omitted) and caused a traffic accident with one (1) the upper and the upper three (3) persons, and the driver was under the influence of the driver was under the influence of 0.107

[Reasons for Recognition] A1, B 1-17, the purport of the entire pleadings

[Related Acts and subordinate statutes] as shown in the attached Form.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle driving under the influence of alcohol is 25 passengers and freight, it is unlawful to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, including a special (bitr driver’s license), even though it can only revoke the first class driver’s license.

(2) In light of the overall circumstances, such as the injury caused by an accident is relatively minor, the victims did not know whether they complained of the pain at the time of the accident, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million, and the Plaintiff has already been subject to a fine of KRW 10 million, and the current operation of a special motor vehicle is the only means of livelihood, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it was excessively harsh and is in excess of the scope of discretionary authority.

(b) Markets:

(1) Class I driver's licenses for large vehicles and general vehicles and Class II driver's licenses for motor vehicles

(A) In principle, where one person has obtained multiple driver's license, it shall be separately treated in revocation, and where the grounds for revocation are neither a specific license nor a specific license nor a person who has obtained a driver's license is related to another license, the entire license may be revoked.

A large-sized vehicle (not less than 16 passengers), which can only be driven by a person holding a first-class large driver's license, shall not be driven with a first-class or second-class driver's license. However, according to Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, a person holding a first-class large driver's license shall not only be a large-class driver's license, but also a person holding a second-class driver's license shall be able to drive all vehicles able to be driven by a person holding a first-class or second-class driver's license. Thus, revocation of the first-class large driver's license includes the purpose of prohibiting a person holding a first-class driver's license or second-class driver's license from driving a vehicle able to be driven by a person holding a second-class driver's license, and thus, the first-class large driver's license is related to one another (see Supreme Court Decision 9

Therefore, although the instant bus can be operated only by the Class I driver's license for large vehicles, the revocation is common to the Class I driver's license for ordinary vehicles and the Class II driver's license for ordinary vehicles, and thus the instant disposition revoked even with the Class I driver's license for ordinary vehicles and the Class II driver's license for ordinary vehicles

(B) As to the deviation from discretionary authority, in light of the need for public interest to prevent violent escape, such as the general harm and injury inflicted on the traffic culture by the same criminal act as such, even when considering the various circumstances of the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the public interest achieved by the cancellation disposition of the above driver’s license against the Plaintiff by the Defendant cannot be deemed that the public interest to be achieved by the Defendant’s above cancellation disposition against the Plaintiff is less vulnerable than that to be suffered by the Plaintiff (According to the record, the Plaintiff has committed several traffic offenses, such as causing traffic accidents for six months after December 5, 203, in addition to the instant accident).

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate within the scope of discretion.

(2) Class 1 Special License (Bar, Baer) revocations

(A) According to Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the instant bus is able to drive with the first-class large driver's license, but it is not possible to drive with the first-class special driver's license (bitr, racker), and the first-class special driver's license (bitr, racker) is operated only with the first-class large driver's license from among the driver's licenses in his possession, and the first-class special driver's license is not related to the above bus's license. In addition, according to the above [Attachment 14], the purport of prohibiting the first-class special driver's license from driving only with the first-class special driver's license is not naturally included (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1031, Mar. 24, 1998).

(B) On the other hand, the point of escape after the traffic accident, which is the reason for the instant disposition, cannot be seen as “related to a person who has obtained a driver’s license,” as “the act of specific driving.”

(C) If so, the first-class special license (e.g., re-registration) revocation is illegal since the grounds for revocation are not common to the first-class large driver's license, and it does not relate to the person who has obtained a driver's license.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Disposition No. 1 of this case regarding the Class 1 Special License (Baler, Baer) shall be revoked, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which has partially different conclusions is unfair, it shall be revoked, and the part concerning the Class 1 Special License (Baler, Baer) shall be accepted, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges' profit-based (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-won