2013Nu888 Revocation of revocation of license revocation

A

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm B

Attorney C

The Commissioner of Busan Local Police Agency

Litigation Performers D

Busan District Court Decision 2012Gudan2096 Decided March 27, 2013

January 10, 2014

January 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On September 4, 2012, the revocation of the driver's license (Class II common) issued by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The victim E, F, and G (in the case of the above three persons, hereinafter referred to as the "victims") of the instant traffic accident is a false patient who has not been hospitalized, and even if being hospitalized, the victim E, and F were hospitalized for 17 days, not much much to the extent of being hospitalized, but the victim E, and F was hospitalized for 11 months, and the victim G was hospitalized with his parent without any specific treatment as a baby for 11 months. Thus, the maximum punishment imposed on the Plaintiff due to the said traffic accident is only 4 or 10 points due to the violation of the safety driving duty, and the maximum punishment imposed on the Plaintiff is only 10 points and 10 points due to the occurrence of the two victims who suffered from the light requiring less than 5 days, or less than 3 weeks. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff’s point of 100 points imposed on the previous driver’s license, it does not constitute the criteria for revocation since the Plaintiff’s 114 or 120 points per year.

2) Considering the fact that the Plaintiff had a duty to reduce the Plaintiff regarding the criteria for disposition of driver’s license due to the penalty points and the excess of the accumulated points, there are circumstances to consider the Plaintiff’s act of violation in the traffic accident in the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s monthly salary received as a driver and the position to be responsible for the livelihood of his family, the instant disposition is unlawful as it excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and excessively deviates from and abused the re-right.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' are as listed in each of the relevant Acts.

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s total score per year constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license

1) Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence 2-2, 4, Eul evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 3-4, and Eul evidence 4, and the fact-finding results with respect to the members of this court's sub-pathic surgery, the plaintiff was already given 100 points for drinking (0.054% of blood alcohol concentration) on October 26, 201, and the plaintiff was given 20 points for the victim's disease on July 15, 2012.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's accumulated score for one year is 155 points (=100 points due to the previous drinking on October 26, 201 + 55 points due to the traffic accident of this case (10 points in violation of the safety driving duty + 45 points in occurrence of three victims (15 points x 3))). The plaintiff's accumulated score for 155 points (the accumulated point for 10 points due to the previous drinking on October 26, 201) and falls under Article 91 (1) and attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

2) Meanwhile, according to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the instant court on the part of the members of the G G, the Indian University’s Marine Bagy Hospital, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the National Health Insurance Corporation’s Marine Site History, the fact-finding conducted the victim G on July 19, 2012 that the victim G was treated with the impairment of the bruptivity and the bruptivity of the brue, and that the victim G was not treated with any special treatment in addition to the medical observation while hospitalized in the face of the brupt.

However, in light of the fact-finding of the above 1) and the above fact-finding, the victims did not actually receive hospitalization treatment from the members of the Ethical department or the above diagnosis of the victims cannot be deemed false, in light of the fact-finding of the above 1) and the above fact-finding of the victims cannot be deemed as false, in light of the fact-finding of the above 1). The victim G did not receive hospitalization treatment from the members of the Ethical department in the Ethical department or the doctor's diagnosis of the victims for the victims is not false.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s cumulative score per year does not constitute more than 121 points is without merit.

(d) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused;

1) The criteria for disposition prescribed in Article 91(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act are merely a provision on the administrative agency’s internal handling rules concerning the disposition of cancelling a driver’s license, considering the nature and internal use 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 is not necessarily a requirement to revoke a driver’s license, on the ground that it falls under the requirements for revoking a driver’s license under the applicable division standards of the Enforcement Rule, and it is not necessary for the significant public interest to justify the cancellation of a driver’s license by comprehensively examining the provisions and purport of the Road Traffic Act, and all circumstances of the pertinent case, and whether it is appropriate to revoke a driver’s license by comparing and comparing the disadvantage suffered by the other party to the disposition of cancelling a driver’s license within the scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97-20236, Mar. 27, 199). Therefore, even if a person who received an objection to the disposition of revoking a driver’s license within six years after the administrative disposition of mitigation.

2) Accordingly, according to the criteria for the disposition of driver's license under Article 91 (1) and [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the plaintiff's total score of the given points exceeds the criteria for the disposition of driver's license. The plaintiff seems to reasonably apply the disposition of driver's license based on the cumulative score as prescribed by the above disposition criteria. ② The rapid increase of motor vehicles today and the number of driver's license is issued in large quantities, so it is very important for the public interest to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions. In order to revoke driver's license for reasons of drinking driving, excess of the given points, etc., the general preventive aspect should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the plaintiff who would suffer from the cancellation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act. ③ The plaintiff's purpose of the disposition of driver's license for reasons of the above increase in the number of reasons such as violation of the duty of safe driving, the prohibition of crossing, driving, afterward, etc., or the violation of the duty of safe driving, etc. is no longer considered.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant disposition was rendered within the scope of discretion and is legitimate 3. conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Maximum seal (Presiding Judge)

Oral Dus

Kimok-Dhan

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

/ Road Traffic Act

Article 93 (Cancellation and Suspension of Driver's License)

(2) When the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency intends to revoke a driver's license or suspend the validity of a driver's license pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she may impose penalty points on a person who has violated traffic regulations or caused a traffic accident in accordance with the degree of violation and damage as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, and when the penalty points exceed a specified point during the period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, he/she may revoke

【Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Article 91 (Standards, etc. for Revocation and Suspension of Driver's License)

(1) The standards for revoking or suspending driver's licenses pursuant to Article 93 of the Act (including the standards for penalty points imposed according to the degree of violation and damage where traffic regulations are violated or traffic accidents are caused) and the standards for prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles, etc. pursuant to Article 97 (1) of the Act shall be as listed in attached Table 28.

[Attachment 28] Criteria for Cancellation and Suspension of Driver's License (Related to Article 91 (1)]

1. General standards:

(c) Revocation and suspension of a driver's license due to excess of penalty points;

(1) Revocation of a license due to excess of the penalty points and cumulative points;

As a result of a violation or accident, the penalty points or annual tegrative points shall reach the penalty points or tegrative points as follows:

(2) If any, the driver's license shall be revoked.

A person shall be appointed.

(f) Reduction of disposition standards;

(1) Grounds for mitigation

(B) Where the driver's license is revoked due to penalty points or excess points.

A driver who has become an important means to maintain his family's livelihood or has become an exemplary driver for at least three years at the time of disposition.

The chief of a police station by engaging in volunteer activities or causing a traffic accident and arresting an escape driver;

A person who has received at least a commendation shall not fall under any of the following cases:

1) When the driver's license was revoked within the past five years;

2) The person causes a traffic accident involving personal damage at least three times during the past five years;

3) When he/she has been subject to a disposition suspending a driver's license on at least three occasions during the past five years.

(iv)in the past five years the deliberation by the deliberation committee on administrative action of driver's license or administrative appeal; or

Where an administrative disposition is mitigated through administrative litigation;

3. Individual criteria for disposition of suspension;

(a) Where he violates this Act or the orders issued under this Act;

A person shall be appointed.

(b) When he causes a traffic accident while driving motor vehicles, etc.;

(1) Standard for giving penalty points according to the result of an accident

A person shall be appointed.