(a) The case holding that the disposition to revoke the license due to the drinking driving is not beyond the limit of discretion; and

(b) Where a driver drivess a vehicle that can be driven with a Class I driver's license, whether it is possible to revoke the first-class driver's license and the first-class driver's license related thereto;

(a) The case holding that the revocation of the driver's license imposed on a driver who escaped to avoid a alcohol measurement and failed to comply with the police officer's instructions confirming drinking while driving the driver's automobile owned by the wife in the state of drinking 0.22% of alcohol by drinking the tenant, driving the driver's automobile in the state of drinking 0.2% of alcohol level, and the driver's license is not exceeded the limits of discretion;

B. In principle, one person's own license is treated as separate from one another in cases where the license is revoked or suspended. However, according to the attached Table 14 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act as well as the date of a large license, a first-class driver's license holder can drive a vehicle or a motorcycle as a first-class driver's license, and a first-class driver's license can drive a vehicle as a first-class driver's license as well as a first-class driver's license, so that a first-class driver's license can drive a motor vehicle as a first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license can be used for a first-class driver's license as well as a first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license can be used for a first-class driver's license as a first-class driver's license and the first-class driver's license can be revoked.

(a)Article 41 of the Road Traffic Act, Section 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, section 78 of the Road Traffic Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8289 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 3007)

Plaintiff

The commissioner of Incheon Metropolitan City Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu4525 delivered on June 21, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The First Ground for Appeal

Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's discretionary authority by viewing that the plaintiff's personal disposition was not erroneous in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's discretionary authority, such as misunderstanding of the circumstances that the plaintiff's personal disposition was made on January 7, 1994, when the plaintiff was driving a sel car owned by 0.22% of 0% of 0.22% of 0% of 0% alcohol concentration while she returned home by driving the sel car at the 4-dong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City 4-dong-dong, 400 meters prior to 21:40 meters of drinking, and 200 meters of driving a car to avoid drinking of alcohol, and then she was taking advantage of the circumstances, such as misunderstanding of the plaintiff's discretionary authority's revocation of the driver's license, even if she was found to have been found to have been affected by the police's non-driving of alcohol.

The Second Ground of Appeal

In principle, the driver's license is treated as separate from one another in the case of cancelling or suspending various kinds of driver's license. However, according to the attached Table 14 of Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the driver's license is a large license, and the driver of the first-class driver's license provides that the driver of the first-class driver's license can drive as a large driver's license, and the first-class driver's license can drive as a large driver's license as well as the first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license can be used as a large driver's license, and the first-class driver's license can be used as a large driver's license as well as the first-class driver's license, and the first-class driver's license is also related to the first-class driver's license as well as the first-class driver's license. Therefore, it is justified in the conclusion of the judgment of the court below to oppose the first-class driver's license as well as the first-class driver's license.

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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)