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 June 4, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired Class A driver’s license for ordinary vehicles (B) and operated Category C private taxis.
B. At around 20:50 on August 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)11 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s detention for about 6 minutes by making the victim take the victim’s off the said private taxi vehicle D and one other from the victim to the mountain station in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, the destination of which was scheduled, even though the victim demanded twice a lower demand, but neglecting the demand, thereby making the victim take more than 3 km away from the vehicle and preventing the victim from getting off the vehicle.
C. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 13, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition did not know whether D, a passenger at the time, made a very low demand or simply displayed anger. The plaintiff tried to change the car line to get off, but did not intend to detain the victim, on the ground that the vehicle was entered into the street, which is an exclusive road for motor vehicles without changing the vehicle too much. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the ground for disposition of this case was non-existent. Thus, even if the plaintiff was allowed to continue to drive the vehicle, it is illegal. 2) In light of the fact that the non-existence of the grounds for disposition of this case does not pose a risk of preventing the same type of crime, and that the license of private taxi transport business was revoked by revocation of the driver's license, thereby making it difficult for the plaintiff's family living.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
(c) Determination 1 sets out Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 7 and 8, respectively, as to the existence of the grounds for action 1.