Plaintiff

The Commissioner of Gyeonggi-do Police Agency

October 25, 2011

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Gudan3259 Decided April 18, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On June 15, 2010, the revocation of the revocation of the first-class and first-class ordinary car driving license for the Plaintiff is revoked by the Defendant.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

피고는, 원고가 2010. 4. 30. 23:00경 동두천시 지행동 (지번 생략) ○○부동산 앞 도로에 주차된 배기량 400㏄의 무등록 오토바이(모델명 CSX400, 이하 ‘이 사건 오토바이’라 한다)를 포터 차량을 이용하여 절취하였다는 이유로, 2010. 6. 15. 도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제12호 에 따라 원고의 제1종 대형, 제1종 보통 자동차운전면허를 모두 취소하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다).

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have stolen the instant disposition based on a different premise, as it misleads the Plaintiff to have abandoned the instant dial part, which is left alone due to the malfunction, and thereby driving the dial part. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Considering the fact that the Plaintiff agreed with the owner of the Oral Ba in this case and that the car driver’s license is necessarily required due to the farming operations, the instant disposition was in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The Road Traffic Act, its Enforcement Decree, and its Enforcement Rule classify the driver's license into the Class I driver's license and the Class II driver's license, and the Class I driver's license is divided into large-scale driver's license, ordinary driver's license, small-sized driver's license, special driver's license, and the Class II driver's license is divided into the Class I driver's license, the Class II driver's license is different according to the type of driver's license, the qualification or requirements for acquiring a license, the test contents, etc., and it is possible for one person to obtain multiple kinds of licenses. However, if there are certain reasons, the driver's license can be cancelled or suspended in certain cases, and it does not necessarily stipulate that the driver's license can be separately classified according to the type of license. Also, the above various kinds of driver's license are classified into large-scale driver's license and the above classification of driver's license is different from each other, and the class I driver's license of large-sized driver's license is defined in duplicate of the scope of driver's license.

그러나 이 사건 오토바이는 배기량이 400㏄로서 도로교통법(2011. 6. 8. 법률 제10790호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제2조 제17호 , 제18호 , 자동차관리법(2011. 5. 24. 법률 제10721호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 , 자동차관리법 시행규칙(2011. 12. 15. 국토해양부령 제414호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 에 의하면 원동기장치자전거에 해당하지 않는 이륜자동차이고, 도로교통법 제80조 제2항 , 도로교통법 시행규칙 제53조 [별표 18]에 의하면 제2종 소형면허를 받은 사람만이 이 사건 오토바이를 운전할 수 있다 할 것이며, 이 사건 처분사유는 원고가 이 사건 오토바이를 훔쳤다는 것이고 주1) , 도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항 [별표 28]에 의하면 도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제12호 의 ‘다른 사람의 자동차등을 훔치거나 빼앗은 때’를 ‘운전면허를 가진 사람이 자동차등을 훔치거나 빼앗아 이를 운전한 때’라고 규정하고 있어 그 취소나 정지의 사유가 운전면허를 받은 사람에 관한 것이 아니고 훔치거나 빼앗은 당해 자동차등을 운전할 수 있는 특정의 면허에 관한 것이며, 제2종 소형면허 이외의 다른 운전면허를 가지고서는 이 사건 오토바이를 운전할 수 없어서 그 취소나 정지의 사유가 다른 면허와 공통된 것도 아니므로, 결국 원고가 이 사건 오토바이를 훔친 것은 제1종 대형면허나 보통면허와는 아무런 관련이 없는 것인바, 이와 같은 경우에는 이 사건 오토바이를 훔친 사유만 가지고서는 제1종 대형면허나 보통면허를 취소할 수 없다 할 것이다( 대법원 1992. 9. 22. 선고 91누8289 판결 , 대법원 1995. 11. 16. 선고 95누8850 전원합의체 판결 등 참조) 주2) .

Therefore, the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class large license and ordinary license on a different premise is unlawful without having to further examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)

1) According to Article 93(1)11 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who has obtained a driver’s license commits a crime of murder, rape, etc. by using a vehicle, etc., the driver’s license is revoked. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act falls under this provision, and the Defendant does not regard

2) According to Article 53 [Attachment 18] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the first-class driver's license holder shall be able to drive all vehicles which the first-class driver's license holder can drive. The first-class driver's license includes the purpose of prohibiting the first-class driver's license from driving. Thus, the first-class driver's license is related to each other. Thus, the first-class driver's license is revoked even when the first-class driver's license is operated while the first-class driver's license is suspended (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12452, Mar. 11, 2005). However, in this case, there is no such related structure.