The case holding that the notice of revocation of driver's license is illegal and oral notice is not a lawful service and thus the revocation does not take effect.

In the event that the change of the address is changed as stated in the license certificate while changing the address, but the license certificate notice was sent to the previous address due to administrative error and returned, the notification of the cancellation notice is inappropriate because the notification of the cancellation notice was not made on the bulletin board of the competent police station under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act. Even if the notification of the cancellation of the license is made orally, it is not a lawful service under the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the cancellation

Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Nu201 Decided April 11, 1972 (Gong1991, 1311) 92Nu4451 Decided March 22, 1991

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu34362 delivered on August 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, when the commissioner of a district police agency revokes a driver's license pursuant to Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, he/she shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact by notice of a certain form, and when he/she is unable to notify the change of his/her address, he/she may make a public notice on

As determined by the court below, although the plaintiff changed his/her address and entered his/her license in the same manner as that of his/her license while changing his/her address, it remains in the licensing register due to administrative error, if the defendant sent the plaintiff a notice of revocation of license to the plaintiff to his/her previous address and returned it, if it was announced on the bulletin board of the competent police station, such measures would be inappropriate because it would not go through the procedures provided for in Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and even if the defendant later notified the plaintiff of his/her oral revocation, the disposition to revoke

In this regard, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's act of driving on June 26, 1992 cannot be viewed as a non-driving since the driver's license cancellation against the plaintiff did not take effect, is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or incomplete reasoning, or misapprehension of legal principles. There is no reason to hold this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)