[1] Whether one person shall be treated as separate from one another when the license for multiple types of driving licenses is revoked or suspended (affirmative), and whether the revocation is possible in cases where the grounds for revocation are common to another license or is related to a person who has obtained a driver's license (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the commissioner of a district police agency revoked all Class A's Class A's Class A's Class A's Class A's Class A's Class I and Class I ordinary driving licenses on the grounds that Gap who has a Class I's Class A's Class I's Class I's Class I's Class I's Class B's Class I's Class I's Class I's class and Class I's Class I's ordinary driving licenses on the ground

[1] In principle, one person's license is not only to obtain multiple kinds of driver's license, but also to revoke or suspend such license. However, if the grounds for revocation are not related to a specific license, but also common with another license, or is related to a person who has obtained a driver's license, a number of licenses may be revoked entirely.

[2] In a case where the commissioner of a district police agency revoked both Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary driving licenses pursuant to Article 93(1)12 of the Road Traffic Act on the grounds that Gap with Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary driving licenses steals 400cc engine displacement, the case affirming the judgment below holding that under Article 93(1)12 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, it is related to a specific license that can drive the pertinent automobile, etc. which has stolen or stolen the relevant automobile, etc., and it does not coincide with other licenses because it is impossible for Gap to drive the above 1 large and Class 1 large and Class 2 driver's licenses with other driver's licenses than Class 2, and thus, it is not possible for Gap to revoke the 1 large and Class 1 driver's license on the ground that it stolen the above 1 large or ordinary driver's license without any relation with it.

[1] Article 93 (1) 12 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 93 (1) 12 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu8850 delivered on November 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3812) Supreme Court Decision 98Du1031 delivered on March 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1210)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of Gyeonggi-do Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu15819 decided December 27, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In principle, one person shall be treated separately in cases where the driver's license is revoked or suspended as well as several kinds of driver's license is obtained. However, in cases where the grounds for revocation are not related to a specific license, but common with other licenses or is related to the person who has obtained a driver's license, all of the licenses may be revoked (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu850 delivered on November 16, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 98Du1031 delivered on March 24, 1998, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's disposition of this case where the plaintiff who has a Class 1 driver's license and Class 1 driver's license has revoked all of the above driver's license on the ground that he steals 400cc of engine displacement. The court below determined that Article 93 (1) 12 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the case where a person who has a driver's license has stolen or stolen another person's motor vehicle, etc." and Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which provides the individual criteria for revocation according to delegation of the main sentence of paragraph (1) of the same Article, provides that "the case where a person who has a driver's license has stolen or deducted a motor vehicle, etc. and drives it, it is a specific license that can drive the relevant motor vehicle, etc., and it is not common to the above license because it is not related to the cancellation of the above driver's license, and eventually, it is not related to the above kind 1 driver's license or driver's license.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of revocation of driver's license, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)