자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article
2. The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition was a legitimate disposition that the Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant disposition along with the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary license as well as the second-class ordinary license, and that the Road Traffic Act was amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016, and the part of the “Driver’s license” in the main text of Article 93(1) of the same Act was changed to the “Driver’s license (including all scope of driver’s license granted to the driver; hereinafter the same
Although there is no evidence submitted, "Notice of Conditional Revocation of Driver's License" attached to the amendment on March 6, 2018, which the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff's domicile on or around September 4, 2017, is the same as the first notification sent and returned. According to the statement, the Defendant stated that the Defendant is "Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary" as the type of driver's license to be revoked, and this appears to have been prepared by the Defendant using the attached Form 85 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. As alleged by the Defendant, the main sentence of Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act was amended and the Ministry of Government Legislation clearly stated that "the fact that the Defendant revoked the license at the time of the revocation of the license for the holder of multiple driver's license is entirely subject to the entire possession license at the time of the revision indicated by the Ministry of Government Legislation at the time of the amendment is clear.
However, the main text of Article 93 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides for the revocation of discretionary discretion by providing that "it may be revoked or suspended," and it does not include any reason for failure to perform the aptitude test even though the proviso provides for the revocation of discretionary discretion.