beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.12 2015구단12413

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 April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a B motorcycle on April 29, 2013:30, while putting the center line in front of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, the front wheels part of the driver’s motorcycle, which was the front wheels of the victim’s bicycle that took place bypassing from the left side, and suffered approximately three weeks of the victim’s bicycle, and went away from the accident site without taking measures, such as aiding the victim.

B. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant, by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff, issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class I and II ordinary drivers’ licenses (D) on July 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the said claim was dismissed on August 4, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 8 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was parked in the lane at the time of the traffic accident and failed to find the victim as it was, and even after finding, it was immediately stopped, but it was not possible to avoid the shock against the victim because the surface was milked.

The plaintiff refers to the case that the victim was sent to the victim and the medical expenses were covered, but the victim told the hospital that he would go to the hospital, and the plaintiff was forced to leave the place of the accident because of the urgent time of promise with the customer.

The plaintiff 18:17 on the day of the traffic accident and voluntarily reported the traffic accident to the police station.

The plaintiff is a person with a disability of class 4 with a disability who is a recipient of basic living benefits and maintains his/her livelihood by operating his/her old occupation, and it is difficult to maintain his/her livelihood

In full view of all the circumstances, the instant disposition was erroneous in the abuse of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes are attached thereto.