(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.09.07 2016누4910 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.09.07 2016누4910

개인택시운송사업면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The Defendant’s act on April 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought the revocation of the revocation of the license for private taxi transport business and the revocation of the revocation of the qualification for private taxi transport business, and the first instance court rejected the claim of revocation of the license for private taxi transport business and the claim of revocation of the qualification for private taxi transport business.

Since only the defendant appealed, this Court's decision is limited to the claim for cancellation of the cancellation of the license of the private taxi transport business.

2. The background of the disposition and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion was difficult to expect that the victim who met on the road might enjoy at night, the victim also want the Plaintiff’s prior wife, and at least five years’s exemplary driving, etc., the Plaintiff’s revocation disposition of the Plaintiff’s license for private taxi transport business under Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act was abused and abused discretion.

4. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as the part of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance from 9 to 18th judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5. According to the records of this case, the suspension of execution of the disposition of cancellation of the license for private taxi transport business is recognized as an urgent need to prevent damage that can be caused to the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the execution of the above disposition is likely to seriously affect public welfare, and the cancellation of the license for private taxi transport business is suspended ex officio until the judgment of this case becomes final

6. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s revocation disposition of the taxi transport business license.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-여객자동차 운수사업법 시행령 제43조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.21 2015누39677

-춘천지방법원 2016.05.13 2016구합47

-대법원 1985. 6. 25. 선고 85누271 판결

-광주지방법원 2016.09.29 2016구합11162

-의정부지방법원 2017.02.14 2016구합754