(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.15 2018누64513

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) 서울고등법원 2019.01.15 2018누64513

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the “instant disposition” to the second and seventh bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance” (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

After the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the fact that the new Class II driver's license was obtained on October 8, 2018, which was after the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the infringement of legal interests arising from the cancellation of the existing Class II ordinary vehicle driver's license by the instant disposition was immediately resolved by the Plaintiff's new acquisition of the Class II ordinary vehicle driver's license.

Meanwhile, in light of the Road Traffic Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in a case where a person with the history of revocation of a driver’s license as the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, has cancelled the disqualified period and subsequently has acquired a driver’s license again, there is no evidence to deem that the previous driver’s license was revoked and then at a disadvantage in the future, and the statements and images of the certificate No. 11 and

(A) Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who has violated Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act more than twice again falls under the grounds for the suspension of a driver's license in violation of Article 44(1), the commissioner of a district police agency shall revoke the driver's license. However, this is not the fact that the revocation or suspension of a driver's license on the ground of a drunk driving is not the fact that the driver's license was revoked or suspended, but it is an aggravated disposal, and thus, it does not constitute a ground for the revocation of a driver's license,

참조조문

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.09.19 2018구단20041

-서울행정법원 2017.09.25 2017구단70260

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.04.28 2016가합206280

-인천지방법원 2021.04.06 2021구단40

-인천지방법원 2019.04.09 2019구단78