[1] Whether an administrative agency can cancel the administrative disposition by its own person after taking an administrative disposition (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that it is not permissible for the chief of a police station to whom a police officer, who discovered a drunk driving that constitutes the ground for revocation of a driver's license, to whom the police officer having jurisdiction over the offender's domicile, issued a disposition of revocation of the driver's license to the offender while he/she was under disposition of suspension

[1] When an administrative agency has taken an administrative disposition once, the administrative agency which has taken the administrative disposition may not revoke (including the meaning of withdrawal) the administrative disposition as a person, except where there is a statutory provision, defect in the administrative disposition, the existence of the administrative disposition is contrary to the public interest, or there is a consent of the other party.

[2] The case holding that it is not permissible for the chief of police station to whom a police officer, who discovered a drunk driving that constitutes the ground for revocation of a driver's license, to whom the police officer having jurisdiction over the offender's domicile, issued a disposition of revocation of the driver's license to the offender while he/she was subject to a disposition of suspension

[1] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 41 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 78 (1) 8 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) [Attachment 16] 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general Administrative Disposition]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7061 delivered on February 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 782)

Plaintiff

Daegu District Police Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 99Nu692 delivered on September 10, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On June 7, 1998, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, who obtained a first-class driver's license and a first-class driver's license, driven a car under the influence of alcohol in front of a yacht club in the summer-dong on June 21, 1998, was exposed to police officers belonging to the relevant leisure police station and conducted a drinking measurement, and the blood alcohol level was 0.15%. The police officers in charge of the relevant leisure police station notified the plaintiff on the same day that the driver's license should be revoked and provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to state his opinion, and requested the defendant, who is the right holder to revoke the driver's license, to take an administrative disposition to revoke the driver's license. Meanwhile, the non-party 1 in the examination division of the traffic accident police station classified the plaintiff as the subject of suspension of driver's license by computer input, and the defendant did not separately set the plaintiff's notice of revocation of the driver's license on the 15th day of the same month and the period of suspension of the driver's license on the same day.

Furthermore, the court below held that the revocation disposition of the driver's license of this case against the preceding disposition was unlawful on the ground of a simple occupational error in the same case without any special reason, where the head of the Native Police Station did not set the time and completion period of the driver's license, but the Plaintiff received the notification of the suspension period of the driver's license of 100 days to the Plaintiff, which stated that the suspension period became effective as the suspension disposition of the driver's license of this case.

On the other hand, in cases where an administrative agency has taken an administrative disposition, the administrative agency may not cancel (including the meaning of withdrawal; hereinafter the same shall apply) the administrative disposition by its own discretion unless there are special reasons, such as the existence of the administrative disposition is in violation of the public interest or the consent of the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7061, Feb. 23, 1990). Although a license of the head of the Native Police Station, which is the preceding disposition, was taken in violation of the criteria for administrative disposition as provided in Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 16] of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, even if the above disposition was taken in violation of the criteria for administrative disposition as provided in Article 53(1) [Attachment Table 16] of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, it does not immediately constitute an unlawful disposition immediately on the sole basis of the above facts, and the plaintiff has already formed trust in the continuation of the disposition by taking effect of the license disposition, and it does not considerably violate the public interest.

The reasoning of the court below is justified in its conclusion that the revocation of the driver's license of this case was illegal, because it is somewhat different, or the revocation of the disposition of the driver's license of this case is not allowed.

All the arguments in the grounds of appeal that there are errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the impruptive power, the principle of protection of trust, and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)