자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 7, 2018, at around 07:15, the Plaintiff driven a B B B B B B B, and proceeded at a speed of 102km/h above 42km and above 102km/h in front of C in Daegu-guned Zone C, and the Plaintiff was killed by E who was driving the said horse on the front side of the vehicle in front of it, and caused an accident that the F, who was taking advantage of it during the chilling season, sustained an injury, such as a chill of the body fright, which requires approximately 14 weeks of treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff was given a total of 135 points (15 points per 90 points of death of 30 km (40km/h to 60 km/h)) to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on March 29, 2018, the Defendant is in accordance with Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.
According to this item, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large scale) was revoked on April 13, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on June 19, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was in office in Korea Post and thus, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to obtain a driver’s license to perform his duties in the workplace, that the Plaintiff agreed with the bereaved families and victims F, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to easily discover the horse at the time in light of the number of hours of sunrise and road conditions, and that the Plaintiff was financially liable due to the instant accident, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and was abused and abused discretion.
B. Determination 1.