(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.19 2017구단210

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) 인천지방법원 2017.12.19 2017구단210

자동차운전면허처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 25, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driver’s license, Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on February 16, 1995, and Class 1 large driver’s license on January 8, 200. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on September 28, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while driving a taxi on September 28, 2016, was in the passenger while the victim was getting out of the taxi, he did not take necessary measures to rescue the victim (hereinafter “instant criminal facts”). However, even though the Plaintiff was at the time of getting out of the taxi, the victim’s right growth was shocked to the right side of the treatment days, and suffered injury to the victim, and did not take necessary measures to rescue the victim.”

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) cannot be deemed as having caused injury to the victim claiming non-existence of the grounds for disposition to the extent necessary for relief, and the Plaintiff did not have the intent to escape. Therefore, the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in light of all the circumstances, including the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse of discretionary power and the Plaintiff’s allegation that the grounds for disposition were nonexistent; and (ii) the Plaintiff was the sole living means of the Plaintiff; and (iii) the Plaintiff was placed in the place where the means of livelihood would be deprived of the means of livelihood

B. First of all, we examine the absence of the grounds for disposition, and the above evidence and the entire pleadings.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.10.25 2015구단2069

-울산지방법원 2017.08.24 2016구합814

-인천지방법원 2017.11.28 2017구단50116

-수원지방법원 2018.05.30 2018구단1149

-제주지방법원 2018.12.05 2018구합498