[1] The legal nature of the criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license (working rules) under Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[2] In a case where one person acquires a number of driver's licenses, whether it can be treated as a separate one in revocation or suspension

[3] Whether the act of a person holding a Class 1 large, general, and special license and a Class 2 small license under the influence of a motor vehicle is a ground for revocation common to the above license (affirmative)

[1] The criteria for the administrative disposition of a driver's license under Article 53 (1) [Attachment Table 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are merely setting the internal business rules of the administrative agency concerning the revocation of a driver's license in light of the nature and content of the provision, and therefore, it shall be deemed that there is no effect of the court or the general public to bind the public. Thus, the revocation of a driver's license shall not be necessarily revoked on the ground that it falls under the requirements for the revocation of a driver's license under the standards of the Enforcement Rule. In light of the provisions and purport of the Road Traffic Act and the overall circumstances of the case in question, it shall be determined whether the revocation of a driver's license is legitimate within the scope of discretionary authority by comparing and comparing

[2] Where one person obtains a multiple driver's license, one driver's license is issued and the driver's license number is integrated and managed based on the first one's license number, it is merely for the convenience in managing the driver's license and the driver's license number. However, it is not possible to treat a number of different kinds of licenses as separate from one another, or to separately execute the revocation or suspension of each license. However, if the grounds for revocation or suspension are not for a specific license, but for a specific license, it is not for a specific license, it may be revoked or suspended in whole.

[3] In a case where a person who obtained a Class I driver's license for large, general, and special and Class II driver's license before the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995), drives a passenger vehicle after the amendment, the act of driving a passenger vehicle becomes a reason for cancellation or suspension of a Class I driver's license for large, general, and special licenses and Class II driver's license under the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act before the amendment, but a vehicle which can be operated with a special license was added to a Class II driver's license under the Enforcement Rule of the same Act after the amendment, but the Enforcement Rule of the same Act added a vehicle which can be operated as a Class II driver's license.

[1] Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] / [3] Articles 68 (2) and 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15253 decided Feb. 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 995) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14360 decided Apr. 7, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1874) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10396 decided Apr. 12, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1598) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4992 decided Jun. 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2401) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Nu8289 decided Sept. 22, 199 (Gong192, 307) / [199Nu15859 decided Nov. 16, 195]

Plaintiff (Attorney Labor Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Gangwon-do Local Police Agency

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The revocation disposition of the first-class driver's license for the Plaintiff as of August 8, 1995 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 6, Eul evidence 8-9-1, 2, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1 and Eul evidence 12-2, and all the arguments, and there is no counter evidence.

A. On June 24, 1983, Class 1 ordinary vehicles, Class 1 large-scale vehicles on June 22, 1986, Class 2 small-sized vehicles on November 29, 194, Class 1 driver's license (license number): On December 13, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired each driver's license (license number): On the road of the 1st Do in 1, 1983, 21:40, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00,000 after 1:0,000 after 1:0,000 after 1:0,000, 00, 00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 1:3:0,000, 00, and 1:0,000, 1:00,000, 1:3:0,000,00).

B. On August 8, 1995, the defendant issued a disposition revoking the above driver's license to the plaintiff by applying Article 78 subparagraph 4 and 8 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 31 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that the plaintiff caused a traffic accident by intentional or negligent driving while driving at a level of 0.1% (the disposition of this case is limited to the disposition revoking the first-class special license).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful because it was made in accordance with the above disposition grounds and relevant laws and regulations. First, the plaintiff's acquisition of a Class 1 driver's license is illegal by applying the provisions of Article 26 and [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act amended by the defendant to allow the driver to operate the Class 1 driver's license as Class 1 driver's license. Second, even if it is not so, the plaintiff's revocation of the plaintiff's Class 1 driver's license is illegal in light of the occurrence and drinking of the accident of this case, the degree of violation, the plaintiff's occupation and disposition of this case, the plaintiff's disadvantage of the accident of this case, and the limit of the discretion of the defendant's discretionary power during the accident of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The Road Traffic Act, the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement Rules thereof classify the driver's license of motor vehicles into the Class I driver's license and the Class II driver's license, and the Class I driver's license is divided into the Class I driver's license, the Class II driver's license, the Class II driver's license into the ordinary driver's license, the small driver's license, the Class II driver's license, and the Class II driver's license is divided into the types of motor vehicle which can be driven according to the kinds of license, the qualification or requirements for acquiring the license, and the details of the examination (Article 68(2) through (4), Article 70 subparagraph 6, Article 71, Article 45 and Article 46 of the Act, Article 26 [Attachment Table 14], Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule).

In addition, Article 41 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has obtained a driver's license shall not drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and Article 41 (3) of the same Act provides that the standard of the state of under the influence of alcohol prohibited under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 78 of the same Act provides that when a person who has obtained a driver's license falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency may cancel the driver's license or suspend the validity of the driver's license within the scope of one year pursuant to the standards set by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. In subparagraph 4 of the same Article, when a traffic accident occurs intentionally or negligently during driving in violation of the provisions of subparagraph 8 through Article 41, the time when a person has been under the influence of alcohol or has been under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provisions of Article 41, Article 31 of the same Act provides that the level of under the influence of alcohol restricted under the provisions of Article 41 of the same Act shall be at least 0.

However, the criteria for administrative disposition of driver's license under Article 53 (1) [Attachment Table 16] of the above Enforcement Rule are deemed to be the content of the provision, and it is merely a provision that sets the internal administrative rules of the administrative agency concerning the revocation of driver's license, and thus, it shall not be externally binding on the court or the general public. Thus, the revocation of driver's license shall not be necessarily revoked on the ground that it falls under the requirements for the revocation of driver's license under the above Enforcement Rule, but shall be determined on the basis of the necessity of the Road Traffic Act and the purport thereof, and the overall circumstances of the pertinent case, by comparing and comparing the disadvantages the above revocation of driver's license with those of the above revocation party, and whether the revocation of the driver'

C. Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

As seen earlier, a person under the Road Traffic Act may obtain multiple kinds of licenses, but it is also possible to revoke a driver's license or suspend the validity of a license in certain cases (Article 78 of the Act). It is not necessarily required to separately distinguish the license depending on the type of license (Article 78 of the Act). In principle, not only where one person acquires a number of kinds of driver's licenses but also where the license is revoked or suspended. Therefore, where one person acquires a number of kinds of driver's licenses, he/she shall issue one driver's license number and the number of his/her driver's license number is integrated and managed (see the proviso of Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and Article 25 of the Guidelines for the Management of Automobile Driver's License Affairs). This is merely for convenience in the management of the driver's license and the number of driver's license (see the proviso of Article 34 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 25 of the Regulations for the Management of Automobile Driver's License). In addition, it is not possible to separately execute a license separately or suspended.

In this case, the first and second types of vehicles that can be operated with a special license under Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995), were all types of the first and second categories of vehicles, but the amended Enforcement Rule of July 1, 1995 added the first class special license to the vehicles that can be operated with a previous special license. Article 3 of the amended Rules provides that the driver's license issued before the enforcement of this Rule shall be deemed to have been issued by these Rules. Thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have been granted a new license under Article 3 of the Addenda at the time of the pertinent drinking and the disposition of this case, so the act of driving the above passenger vehicle was eventually deemed to have become common, general, or special cancellation of the license.

Therefore, in cases where a person with a special license intends to drive a passenger vehicle before the amendment of the above Rule, he/she would benefit the owner of the special license so that he/she can drive a passenger vehicle without a separate license by the amendment of the above Rule, and in such cases, he/she would have suffered disadvantage from the cancellation of the special license as above. Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff that the above Enforcement Rule of the former Road Traffic Act shall apply only to the type of the vehicle that he/she can drive, as of the type of the vehicle, is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiff

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 6, the plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on April 18, 1987, and was in active service with Cheongcheon Police Station from November 1, 1993 to the date of the accident after obtaining the driver's license for the current police officer who had been in service with Cheongcheon Police Station and in the traffic system. The plaintiff was driving without the accident before the date of the accident. On July 29, 1995, which was the date of the accident, around 20:30 on July 29, 1995, the plaintiff was recognized as having been in contact with the above Kim Jong-dong Kim-dong's office and caused the accident of this case to go home, and the plaintiff did not have the duty of traffic accident of this case to prevent the traffic accident of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiff did not have the duty of traffic accident of this case, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not have the duty of traffic accident of this case and its own discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges Kim Tae-hwan (Presiding Judge)