[1] The validity of the suspension of driver's license that was notified or served in a manner violating Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[2] The validity of the disposition of suspension of a driver's license in the name of a police officer controlling a drunk driving (negative)

[3] In a case where a driver drives a vehicle that can be driven with a Class I driver's license during the suspension period of the driver's license, whether the driver's license can be revoked (affirmative)

[1] In the case of the disposition of suspension of driver's license, Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act which provides that the licensing authority shall send the notification of the disposition seven days prior to the execution date of the disposition by a notice in certain form is not a simple decoration provision, but a provision with legal effect. Even if the disposition of suspension of driver's license lawfully established is notified or served in a manner in violation of the above provision, it does not become null and void as a matter of course, but it does not become effective if the defect is significant and objective, such as the oral notification of the suspension of license. However, in other cases, the purpose, significance, function, etc. of other laws and regulations should be reasonably considered along with the special nature

[2] Since the authority to suspend a driver's license was delegated to the chief of a police station by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, the police officer controlling the detection of the driver's license under the name of the chief of the police station can not conduct the disposition of suspension under his/her own name even though he/she can handle the disposition of suspension of the driver's license by proxy under the name of the chief of the police station. Thus, the disposition of suspension of the driver's license issued by the controlling police officer by preparing and issuing the driver's license notice under his

[3] In principle, one person's driver's license as well as the revocation or suspension of a number of driver's license is different from one another. However, according to Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the driver's license of the first-class driver's license as well as the large license is a license, and the first-class driver's license stipulates that the driver's license of the first-class driver's license can drive not only a passenger car but also a motor bicycle, and the first-class driver's license of the vehicle is related to one another. Thus, if the driver's license of the first-class driver's license is operated while the first-class driver'

[1] Article 78 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Articles 78 (1) and 104 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 53 (2) and 70 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 40 and 78 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21705 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 732), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17823 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2226) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu671 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1507), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu621 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1936) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9672 delivered on November 25, 194 (Gong195, 120) 95Nu96959 delivered on November 96, 196 (Gong9595, 195)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu31088 delivered on December 18, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for temporary driver's license on July 12, 1982; the plaintiff acquired Class 1 driver's license on January 24, 1987; the defendant discovered the plaintiff's drinking around February 28, 1996; and the result of measurement of drinking at around 21:59 on February 28, 1996; if the plaintiff did not wish to issue a temporary driver's license on February 22:20 of the same day; if the plaintiff wishes to issue a temporary driver's license, the court below issued a notice of suspension of driver's license (No. 7); the plaintiff's temporary driver's license on March 19, 196; the plaintiff's temporary driver's license on June 15, 1996; and the plaintiff's temporary driver's license on March 19, 196.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 53 (2) of the same Act, and Article 53 (2) of the same Enforcement Rule, where a licensing authority (in the case of a disposition of suspension of driver's license, the chief of the competent police station becomes the chief of the competent police station according to the delegation provisions of Article 104 (2) of the same Act and Article 70 (1) of the same Enforcement Rule) revokes or suspends the validity of a driver's license, he/she shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact by a notice of cancellation or suspension of driver's license in attached Form 52 of the same Enforcement Rule, stating the contents, grounds, and grounds for the disposition, and in the case of a disposition of suspension, he/she shall send it by seven days prior to the scheduled date of the disposition, and the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17823 delivered on June 14, 196 shall be based on an objective provision of Article 53 (2) of the same Enforcement Rule.

On February 28, 1996, a police officer controlling that the plaintiff was found to have a drinking driver's license under his/her name on his/her own name at around 21:59, prepared a document (No. B. 7) stating the plaintiff's personal information, the number of the driver's license, the reason for disposition, and the details of disposition (no. 100 days for the suspension of the driver's license) on his/her own on his/her own name. If the plaintiff does not wish to issue a temporary driver's license on his/her own, the notice shall be executed 100 days from the enforcement date of the disposition for suspension of the driver's license on his/her own under his/her name, and if the plaintiff wishes to issue a temporary driver's license, it shall be applied to the traffic control system within 20 days from the enforcement date of the temporary driver's license, and even if 10 days from the date following the expiration date of the disposition, the plaintiff's request for suspension of the driver's license under his/her own name may not be executed for 19 days from the police station.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was legitimate on the premise that the suspension of the driver's license was lawfully notified to the plaintiff by the notice of the administrative disposition issued on the date of detection of the violation of the rules of evidence and the legal principles as to Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, since the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the provision

3. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

However, according to Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the driver's license of the first-class driver's license provides that the driver's license of the first-class driver's license is permitted to drive not only a passenger car but also a motor bicycle. Thus, the driver's license of the first-class driver's license is related to each other since the cancellation of the first-class driver's license of the first-class driver's license includes the purpose of prohibiting the driver's license of the second-class driver's license. Thus, if the driver's license of the first-class driver's license of the first-class driver's license drives a vehicle which can be operated as a driver's license of the first-class driver's license during the suspension period of the driver's license, the driver's license of the first-class driver's license shall be revoked even for the driver's license of the first-class driver's license (Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu

However, the court below held that the driver's license cannot be revoked for the plaintiff's second class driver's license on the premise that the driver's license of the second class driver's license and the driver's license of the second class driver's license are not related to the driver's license of the second class driver's license while the driver's license is suspended. Such decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of driver's license. However, as long as the plaintiff did not drive the second class driver's license during the suspension period as seen above, the court below's decision on this part is just in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendant's 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)