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 April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff is driving B-si in front of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Flag as at around 22:10.
In the course of stopping for passengers' getting off the taxi, the driver of the sib has not taken relief measures, etc. even though the passenger was faced with the taxi door at the right side of the sib, while the driver was on the left side of the sib (such as the left-hand gate, tension, etc. requiring two weeks treatment).
B. On September 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 and Class 1 common) on the grounds that the Defendant injured the Plaintiff due to the foregoing traffic accident, but did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act; and (b) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 8, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 15-17, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is minor; the police sent the Plaintiff’s assertion to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (or after-accident); the Defendant’s response to the accident-handling officer of C (State) was based on the prosecution’s order to submit a malicious application to a person in charge of handling the accident, and the punishment was aggravated by being sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million; the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked; the family’s livelihood is threatened when the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked; the disqualified period of the driver’s license was four years; the Plaintiff violated a large number of traffic regulations in the past, but it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to drive the taxi and take taxi commission. In light of the above, the instant disposition was an unlawful act of abusing discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1.