beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on matters asserted by the plaintiff is added in the court of first instance on August 31, 2018; and (b) the judgment on matters asserted by the plaintiff is added in the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment.
2. The addition;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “violation of the method of overtaking” by the Plaintiff is evaluated as one “violation of the prohibition of climatic driving (40 points)”, but in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant divided it into six acts, and added it to six points (60 points each by adding up six points).
Examining the grounds of appeal submitted in the trial at the trial court, the Plaintiff did not provide any specific grounds by asserting that six "violation of Method of Overtaking" should be evaluated as one act. However, examining the documents submitted in the trial at the first instance court and the statement in the evidence No. 13, it is interpreted that the act of "violation of Method of Overtaking" constitutes a single "violation of Prohibition of Exposure" and thus, it should be evaluated as one act.
② In the case of the Plaintiff’s act of speed violation, the Plaintiff continued to run 8 km at a speed of 170km/h, and thus, it should be deemed as one act of speed violation. However, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant divided it into two acts, and added up two points, respectively (in addition, 120 points per 60 points).
The main criteria for determining whether the revocation of driver's license constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power are given points in accordance with Article 91 (1) and attached Table 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant is the defendant, as above, ① and ②.