국가인권위원회결정취소청구의 소
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 January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff was boarding a taxi (B) in the Pyeongtaek-si, Ansan-si, and arrived in front of the Dju station located in Songpa-gu Seoul in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s residence, a destination of which was located, around 22:40 on the same day. There was a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff and the taxi driver claimed excessive taxi costs, and in the process, there was physical fighting between the Plaintiff and the taxi engineer.
B. Accordingly, the taxi engineer reported the Plaintiff to the police, and the police officer F of the police station affiliated with the Songpa Police Station E-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “police officer”) dispatched upon receipt of the report, arrested the Plaintiff on the spot as an flagrant offender, and detained the Plaintiff on the spot by not later than 03:00 on January 6, 2017.
C. On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff arrived in the vicinity of his/her residence where he/she embarked on a taxi, claimed excessive fees, brought about a taxi engineer and a defense room, and went beyond the Plaintiff’s breath, and the police officer called up illegally arrested the Plaintiff without notification of the feasia, while he/she took the knee part of the Plaintiff’s knee.” (Case No. 17-G-027200, hereinafter “instant petition”).
On April 27, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the instant petition on the ground that “No objective evidence exists to acknowledge the content of the instant petition as true” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff claimed excessive amount of 10,00 won compared to that on the day of the instant case, and resisted to the taxi engineer, and did not have any intent or ability to pay the taxi expenses, and did not assault the taxi engineer. Rather, the police officer was assaulted by the taxi engineer, but the police officer was only the statement of the taxi engineer.