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 April 20, 2019, at around 16:50, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B Cost Star Engine and moved to a two-lane in the vicinity of the Cheongju Station, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju-si, in the middle of the Cheongju Station, in the middle of the Cheongju Station. On the other hand, a vehicle driver following the said two-lane was trying to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (b) again, the vehicle driver was in the middle of the road left part of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).
As a result, the above driver suffered injury that requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment.
B. On May 28, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 and class 2 ordinary) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident in which the person was injured and did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 and Eul 1, 13 evidence (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was not negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident. In addition, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have any shock or contact with the damaged vehicle, and was a honded road from the point where the instant accident occurred. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been aware of the occurrence of the accident at all. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty to take measures and report after the instant accident occurred, is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition was unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff was not negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was unlikely to be aware of the occurrence of the instant accident, and there was a high possibility that the Plaintiff could not be aware of the occurrence of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s operation of the company operated by the disabled and reported