자동차운전면허정지처분취소
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 February 25, 2017, the Plaintiff operated D express bus (hereinafter “instant bus”) following the victim B (hereinafter “victim”)’s C car from the Daegu-si bank located in the Dong-dong bank located in the Central Highway-si, Seongbuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “victim”) at a distance of 167 km from the Myeon-si, Dong-si, Si-si, Daegu-si. In addition, the Plaintiff operated the instant bus (hereinafter “instant bus”).
B. On May 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to suspend a driver’s license (Class 1 large, Class 1 large, and large, large, etc.) for 90 days on the ground that the Plaintiff, while operating the instant bus as above, was in violation of Article 284 (Special Intimidation) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “re-driving”).
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 26, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the ground for disposition does not have any special threat (retaliatory) by using the bus of this case on the day of this case. Thus, there is no ground for the disposition of this case. 2) The plaintiff abused discretion from abuse of discretionary power has been faithfully driving as an exemplary driver. The plaintiff was a bus driver, but he was lost due to the disposition of this case, but he was lost due to the disposition of this case, but his reemployment is difficult in the future, thereby making it difficult for the plaintiff and his family members to be re-employed. The plaintiff is subject to the same sanction as the victim who was a more severe retaliation than the plaintiff is in violation of the principle of proportionality. Considering the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff and the above circumstances, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretionary
B. Determination 1 as to the absence of grounds for disposition