자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 2, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a B ASEAN car on August 2, 2015, and driven a four-lane road of 1279 in the south-west circulation of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government along one-lane from the ShiiIC to the GuroIC airb, from the ShiiIC bank, the part of the behind part of the car behind the car of the car of the car of the car of the car of the vehicle of the car of the car of the car of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the car of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of
(hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, C and D suffered injury in need of approximately two weeks’ medical treatment, and the said car was destroyed to the extent of scrapping, and the said car was destroyed to the extent of KRW 1.9 million for the repair cost.
B. However, the Plaintiff was found to have escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding victims, after causing the instant accident, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on October 5, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the said claim was dismissed on February 2, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 29, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident and the interference with traffic after the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff merely moved the vehicle to another place at the accident site, and not so for the purpose of escape. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s ground for the instant disposition is recognized even if the abuse of discretionary power is recognized, the Plaintiff shall commit the same type of crime.