2017Gudan20358 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

A person shall be appointed.

The Commissioner of Busan Local Police Agency

June 14, 2017

August 23, 2017

1. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Order . 1

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not undergo an aptitude test within a periodical period; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not undergo

4. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was canceled on July 6, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Defendant sent the notice of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff’s domicile on the Plaintiff’s car driving license registry “B, Busan-gun, Busan-gun,” and the said notice was not delivered to the Plaintiff’s address unknown on May 20, 2016.

C. Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 93(1), 93(3), and 94 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant publicly announced the contents of the instant disposition on the Defendant’s bulletin board and website from May 24, 2016 to June 6, 2016.

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on December 21, 2016, but the Central Administrative Adjudication Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 14, 2016.

2. Determination as to the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant disposition took effect on June 7, 2016 following the end of the period of the Defendant’s public notice, and a request for administrative appeal filed on December 21, 2016, which had passed 180 days from that time, is unlawful as a result of the lapse of that period. Moreover, the revocation suit does not comply with the period of filing a lawsuit on the ground that the instant revocation suit was filed within 90 days from the date when a written ruling was served on an illegal administrative request after a ruling was rendered on the administrative request. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has lapsed with the period of filing the lawsuit.

2) The Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license again after the instant disposition was revoked, and thus, there is no interest in the instant lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) The term "the date when a disposition is taken" under Article 27 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act means the date when the other party is notified to the other party of the administrative disposition in accordance with the general legal principles of expression of intent, unless otherwise expressly provided (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2284 delivered on July 13, 1990).

In addition, Article 93 (4) of the Road Traffic Act provides that when the commissioner of a district police agency takes a disposition to revoke or suspend a driver's license, he/she shall notify the relevant person of the grounds for the disposition and the period during which he/she may file an administrative appeal, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security: Provided, That in order to revoke a driver's license on the grounds that he/she did not undergo an aptitude test, he/she may substitute the notification by giving conditional notice

In addition, according to Articles 93(3) and 94 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the commissioner of a district police agency or the chief of a police station shall, when he/she intends to revoke a driver's license on the grounds that a person who has obtained a driver's license did not undergo a regular aptitude test, issue a written notice of conditional revocation of the driver's license to the person subject to such disposition prior to the lapse of ten months from the expiration date of the regular aptitude test period pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(4) of the Road Traffic Act: Provided, That when the person subject to such disposition cannot

However, the term "not known whereabouts" refers to cases where a person subject to the disposition resides in his/her domicile due to temporary outing, etc., but rather to cases where the person subject to the disposition is unable to confirm his/her address, etc. or to send it in a normal way as in the notice of suspension or cancellation of a driver's license under Article 93 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, such as in the service of "the notice of suspension or cancellation of a driver's license," and it is reasonable to interpret that the person subject to the disposition refers to cases where the person cannot confirm his/her address, etc. in the ordinary way due to the reasons such as where he/she is living in the same domicile (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8508, Jun. 10, 2005; 2009Do3594, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.).

B) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned statutory provisions and legal principles.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the whole purport of the argument in each statement of Gap's 1 through 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff normally received other mail while living in the multi-family house located in Busan-gun B at the time when the notice of the disposition of this case was served. ② The notice of the aptitude test sent by the defendant to the plaintiff's domicile on the plaintiff's driver's license registry and the notice of the disposition of this case was not delivered to the plaintiff on the ground of "the address unknown." This was due to the fact that the number of multi-family houses residing by the plaintiff was not confirmed, and ③ the defendant immediately announced the notice on the bulletin without any effort to confirm the specific number of houses. Accordingly, the defendant's above measures violate Article 93 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the defendant's objection that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it did not have the effect of the disposition of this case on the day following the date on which the public notice date was terminated because it did not meet the above requirements. Thus, the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful is without merit.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the plaintiff is acknowledged to have terminated a contract of employment with a bus company whose qualification for bus driving was revoked due to the disposition of this case. Even if the plaintiff newly acquired a driver's license, the non-existence of a driver's license was terminated only, and the disadvantage caused by the disposition of this case still has not been resolved. Thus, the plaintiff still has legal interest in removing the above disadvantage by seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case by the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense that there is no interest in the lawsuit is not reasonable.

3. Judgment on the legality of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff’s residence does not fall under “the unknown whereabouts” under the proviso of Article 93(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant publicly announced the content of the instant disposition on the bulletin board. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful due to its defect in the procedure.

B. Determination

When a licensing authority issues a disposition, such as the cancellation of a driver's license, it shall notify the parties to the disposition of the grounds for the disposition and the period during which they can file an administrative appeal, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, and shall notify the parties to the disposition of the revocation of the driver's license without receiving an aptitude test before the expiration date of the date on which the person who obtained the driver's license can take an aptitude test of the fact that the driver's license is revoked without receiving an aptitude test. The purport of the provision is to minimize the disadvantage that the other party would suffer due to the cancellation of the driver's license and to guarantee

The measures publicly announced by the Defendant in lieu of notifying the Plaintiff of the instant disposition are as seen earlier, which violate Article 93(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the instant disposition is unlawful due to procedural defects contrary to the purport of the said provision.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.

Judges Lee So-young

1) Although the date of the instant disposition is indicated as July 6, 2016 in the instant complaint, it is stated as the date of revocation of driver’s license on April 25, 2016.

It is obvious that it is a clerical error.