logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.09 2016구단1184
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 January 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was given the penalty points of 100 points for driving under the influence of alcohol (0.081% of blood alcohol concentration) as well as the penalty points of 40 points for failing to comply with the summary judgment on October 22, 2015.

B. On December 17, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s one-year accumulated points exceeds 121 points, which is the 140 driver’s license revocation standards.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s summary judgment notice was received by birth and was given penalty points due to the Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the fact that the notice was given by birth, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be held responsible.

Considering the fact that the driver’s license is necessary for the Plaintiff to drive an individual truck, and the revocation of the driver’s license is a threat to the livelihood of his family, the instant disposition is unlawful as it has been abused the Plaintiff’s disadvantage more substantially than the public interest to be achieved therefrom.

B. (1) In the absence of special circumstances, a postal item sent by means of registration shall be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13127, Dec. 11, 1992). In the instant case, according to the evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff did not pay the penalty for a violation of the prohibition of cutting, and the competent authority sent a notice of attendance according to the summary judgment by registered mail, and on Sept. 10, 2015, it is recognized that he received a registered mail item B with the above notice at the Plaintiff’s domicile.

(2) On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings on the rejection statement Nos. 5 to 8 of Eul.

arrow