logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.19 2015구단831
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 11, 1990, the Plaintiff was driving a Class 1 driver’s license for large vehicles (B) on December 26, 1995, and was driving a Class 1 driver’s license for large vehicles (B) on September 26, 201, while driving a CF on September 13:00 on September 26, 201 and driving a CF on September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes damage to either 11, 2, and 3,00 (311,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On November 24, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license in accordance with Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was given 190 points (10 points in violation of the duty of safety driving, 180 points in human damage (11 points in middle, 15 points, 3 points in light of light, 5 points x 5 points) due to the instant accident and the accumulated points in a year constitute at least 121 points, which are the criteria for revocation of the driver’s license.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on November 26, 2014, but was dismissed on April 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion maintains his livelihood with a tourist bus driver’s license and the Plaintiff received official commendation, etc. as volunteer activities, etc., the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 200).

arrow