자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, the defendant issued the instant disposition against the plaintiff on October 22, 2014, on the ground that "the plaintiff was driving at around 07:48, Sept. 30, 2014, causing two injuries to the plaintiff and escaped" by applying Article 93 (1) 6 of the Road Traffic Act to the plaintiff as of November 16, 2014, respectively.
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.
(b) A litigation seeking cancellation of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is known, and where it has undergone an administrative appeal, etc., the litigation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the authentic copy of a written adjudication
(1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall file the instant lawsuit on July 10, 2015, which was served on January 7, 2015 after the lapse of the period for filing the instant lawsuit.” However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, even if it was served on January 7, 2015.
3. According to the conclusion, the instant lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.