자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the course of appeal, are not significantly different from those already asserted in the court of first instance, and the judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unfair since the administrative agency did not reduce the disposition, even though it falls under the grounds for mitigation of the disposition disposition of the disposition of revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.
On the other hand, the criteria for the disposition of revocation of a driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are merely setting the internal business rules of the administrative agency concerning the disposition of revocation of a driver's license in light of the nature and content of the provision, and there is no externally binding effect on the court or the general public. Thus, the revocation of a driver's license does not necessarily have to be revoked on the ground that it falls under the requirements for revocation of a driver's license in accordance with the standards of the Enforcement Rule. In light of the provision and purport of the Road Traffic Act and the overall circumstances of the relevant case, it shall be determined within the scope of discretion whether the revocation of a driver's license is legitimate by comparing and comparing
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20236, Mar. 27, 1998). Therefore, driving under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is an important means for maintaining family’s livelihood.