Whether the issuance of a driver's license is restricted for two years under Article 70 subparagraph 7 of the Road Traffic Act in a case where a person whose driver's license has been revoked due to his/her failure to take an aptitude test.

Article 70 subparagraph 5 of the Road Traffic Act, which lists the grounds for disqualification of a driver's license, provides that a person in whose case one year has not passed since his/her driver's license was revoked shall not be eligible to obtain the driver's license: Provided, That this shall not apply to a person for whom the driver's license was revoked because he/she did not undergo an aptitude test, while Article 40 subparagraph 7 of the same Article provides that the person for whom two years have not passed since the date of the violation shall not be eligible to obtain the driver's license and the person for whom two years have not passed since the violation is in violation of the prohibition provision on driving without a driver's license under Article 40 shall be excluded from the case of driving without a license during the period for which the validity of a driver's license was suspended; the purport of the aptitude test system is the system; the absence of the aptitude test is relatively easily caused by a simple negligence; and any effort is not required such as conducting a physical examination as to whether he/she will conduct a test or not.

Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 70 of the same Act, Article 78 of the same Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The defendant's disposition rejecting to reissue a driver's license against the plaintiff on January 12, 1990 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In 1969, the Plaintiff acquired a first-class driver's license in 1969, the first-class driver's license in 1974, and the first-class driver's license in 1976, and the second-class driver's license in 1976, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff's above driver's license on April 19, 1989, respectively. The Plaintiff continued to drive without the cancellation of the driver's license and was subject to criminal punishment of 2,00,000,000 won due to traffic accident on October 5, 1989, and was returned at the same time after receiving an administrative disposition of 35 days of the suspension of license. After checking that the Plaintiff's driver's license was over an aptitude test on January 11, 1990, the Plaintiff failed to file an application for re-issuance with the Plaintiff for a new traffic accident after completing the physical examination with the knowledge that the Plaintiff's license was cancelled as of April 13, 1989.

2. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and applicable provisions of law, and the plaintiff did not have been punished for driving without a license for traffic accidents, and the defendant's disposition of revocation of a driver's license on April 19, 1989 and did not take effect because it did not have been notified to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of this case on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver's license shall be revoked when the person who has obtained the driver's license fails to undergo an aptitude test, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act provides that when the Do governor cancels the driver's license pursuant to Article 78 of the Act, he shall be obliged to notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of such fact, but when it is impossible to give notice of the change of address due to the change of address in the notification of the cancellation of the driver's license, he shall be 10 days by public notification on the bulletin board of the police station having the jurisdiction over the domicile stated in the driver's license. The fact that the plaintiff goes beyond the time limit without undergoing the aptitude test as seen earlier is 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, evidence 4, 5, and 97 (Notice on Disposition of Cancellation of Driver's License) of the above driver's license for the reason that the plaintiff's above notice of cancellation cannot be combined with the above notice of cancellation of the driver's license's license for 196.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition to revoke the driver's license on April 19, 1989 shall be deemed to have taken effect as of May 29, 1989 of the last seal of the public notice period. Therefore, since May 30, 1989, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been driving under a violation of the prohibition of driver's license under Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act, and since the plaintiff was not punished as a non-exclusive driver's license on October 5, 1989, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff's act of driving is objectively not a non-exclusive driver's license.

However, Article 70 of the Road Traffic Act, which lists the grounds for disqualification for a driver's license, provides that the person whose license has been revoked due to the absence of an aptitude test as in the case of the Plaintiff, shall not be eligible for a driver's license, while Article 70 of the Road Traffic Act, which lists the grounds for disqualification for a driver's license for two years, provides that the same shall not apply to a person for whom one year has not passed since he/she was revoked since he/she was not subject to an aptitude test, while subparagraph 7 of Article 40 provides that the person for whom two years have not passed since he/she violated the prohibition of a driver's license under Article 40 shall not be eligible for a driver's license, while the person for whom two years have not passed since he/she was in violation of Article 40 while driving

In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions and the purport of the aptitude test system, the failure of the aptitude test is a violation that occurs relatively easily due to simple negligence, and the fact that there is no need to make any effort to re-issue the driver's license that is revoked due to the unpaid aptitude test, other than the physical examination, such as whether the test is conducted or not, etc., the driver's license is revoked due to the failure of the aptitude test, it shall be interpreted that the restriction on issuance of the license for two years, as in the case of the driver's license is not applied to the driver's license

3. As such, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for re-issuance of the Plaintiff’s license is unlawful on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff drive the Plaintiff after the driver’s license was revoked due to the unpaid driver’s license, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is justified, and the litigation cost is assessed against the losing Defendant.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)