logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.30 2018구단314
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 10, 1979, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to suspend a driver’s license for 25 days (25 days from December 5, 2017 to December 29, 2017) since the penalty points for violation of signal or instruction was imposed on May 16, 2017, and the penalty points for violation of traffic classification was reduced to 30 days and the number of days during which special amnesty was suspended was reduced to 25 days.

B. On December 22, 2017, the period of suspension of a driver’s license, the Plaintiff, at around 12:30, controlled a police officer on the driving of a D car on the front side of the Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon.

C. On March 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)19 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of driving during the suspension period of driver’s license.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but the above claim was dismissed on May 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is forced to drive the above vehicle due to the lack of a person to drive the vehicle in the situation that the plaintiff should complete with the first instance trial and return to the workplace, and due to the lack of a person to drive the vehicle. The plaintiff operated the model vehicle without any traffic accident for 38 years after the plaintiff acquired the driver's license in 1979, and the plaintiff must have a driver's license to work and maintain the livelihood for a worker on a daily basis, the disposition of this case is excessively harsh to the plaintiff and abuse its discretion.

B. Determination (1) The instant disposition conforms to Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there is no reasonable ground to deem otherwise that the said disposition standards are significantly unreasonable, and (2) the act of driving during the suspension period of driver’s license violates traffic regulations.

arrow