자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On November 21, 2015, at the vicinity of the Southern Terminal, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 01:43, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the BK9 vehicle in the vicinity of the Southern Terminal; (b) driven the BK9 vehicle into one-lane 4 lanes from the west-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the alternate distance shooting range; and (c) shocked back the atmosphere of the Victim C Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “rocketing Vehicle”) who was signaled at one-lane, and caused an accident of shocking the driver of the D Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”); and (d) left the scene without reporting each of the two weeks injuries to the victim C, victims E, F, G, and D, who need to be treated, despite having reported each of the two weeks of the injuries, the Plaintiff did not leave the scene.
On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I and II ordinary drivers’ licenses as of January 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not perform relief measures or duty to report despite having caused a traffic accident being injured” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on June 14, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] The purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 9 (including identification numbers) is to be legitimate in the disposition of this case. If the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate after the driver's license was obtained in 1995, the accident of this case does not have any specific punishment power, and the driver's license is essential for business and family life, the victims of this case are minor damages, and the plaintiff agreed with the victim C, D only with the victim E, F, and G.