[1] The nature (effective provisions) of Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[2] Whether the disposition of suspension of a license is effective where the licensing authority verbally notifies the other party of the suspension of a license for the convenience of the other party who voluntarily attended (negative)

[1] Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995) provide that when a licensing authority cancels or suspends the validity of a driver's license, it shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact by notice of cancellation or suspension of the driver's license in attached Form 52 stating the contents, reasons, and grounds, but in the case of the disposition of suspension, it shall be dispatched seven days prior to the scheduled date of the disposition. This is to minimize the disadvantage that the other party would suffer from the suspension of the driver's license by notifying the other party in writing of the disposition of disadvantageous suspension of the driver's license in advance, and to guarantee the other party an opportunity of objection, such as filing an application for suspension of the execution of the disposition, administrative litigation, etc., the provision of Article 53 (2) of the same Act is effective.

[2] Where a licensing authority fails to notify the suspension of license by the notification in attached Form 52, or fails to send it by seven days prior to the scheduled date of disposition execution, barring any special circumstance, the measures which are not in conformity with the procedure and form required by the above-related Acts and subordinate statutes and are not effective. This legal principle also applies where the licensing authority knows the fact of the suspension of license orally for the convenience of the other party present at its discretion.

[1] Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 71Nu201 delivered on April 11, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 91Do223 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 131), Supreme Court Decision 91Do223 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong191, 1311), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21705 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 732)

Plaintiff

Police Agency of Jeonnam-do

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Gu1001 delivered on November 2, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the chief of the non-party mine police station sent a notice of suspension of license to the plaintiff on November 24, 1994 (from December 2, 1994 the scheduled date of execution) on the ground that the non-party mine chief of the non-party mine police station exceeded 30 points of penalty points, but returned the plaintiff's address unknown, and notified the plaintiff of the above disposition through the location investigation. On February 6, 1995, the plaintiff voluntarily attended the above police station and notified the plaintiff of suspension of license for 30 days from the next day to March 8, 195, and notified the suspension period from February 7, 1995 to the suspension of license for 00:0 00 - 0130, the non-party taxi company (vehicle registration number omitted)'s (the plaintiff's driver's license of this case was revoked on March 6, 1994, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for suspension of license based on due process.

However, Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995) provides that when a licensing authority cancels or suspends the validity of a driver's license, it shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact by a notice of cancellation or suspension of the driver's license in attached Form 52 stating the contents, reasons, and grounds, but in the case of the disposition of suspension, it shall be sent seven days prior to the scheduled date of the disposition. This is to minimize the disadvantage that the other party would suffer from the suspension of the driver's license by notifying the other party in writing of the disposition of disadvantageous suspension of the driver's license in advance, and to guarantee the other party's opportunity of objection, such as application for suspension of the execution of the disposition or administrative litigation. Thus, in the case of the disposition of suspension of the driver's license, the provisions of Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule are effective.

Therefore, in a case where a licensing authority fails to notify the suspension of license by the notification in attached Form 52, or fails to send it by seven days prior to the scheduled date of the execution of the disposition, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the above-related Acts and subordinate statutes are null and void, unless there are any special circumstances. The same legal principle shall apply to the case where the licensing authority makes a verbal notification of the suspension of license for the convenience of the other party present at will.

According to the records, on November 24, 1994, the chief of the non-party mining station sent a notice of suspension of a driver's license to suspend the driver's license for 30 days from December 2, 1994 on the ground that the plaintiff's point of points exceeds 30, but (see, e.g., the records 44 pages, and the court below found that the defendant erred by misapprehending the above disposition of suspension of the driver's license), which led the plaintiff to voluntarily attend the above police station through the investigation into the location of the police box under his jurisdiction (the court below found that the plaintiff was informed of the disposition through the investigation into the location, but the court below found that the court below's evidence is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it differently in the records: the police officer present at the above police station traffic line on February 6, 1995 without issuing the above notice, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's driver's license was suspended for 30 days from 00 days from the next day of the above notification, and that the plaintiff's driver's license was returned.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case was legitimate on the premise that the disposition of this case was lawfully notified to the plaintiff on November 24, 1994, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, because the plaintiff was driving during the suspension period of driver's license. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)