자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. On August 12, 2014, the key issue of the instant case was the disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff’s license constitutes “cases where the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures or report under Article 54(1) or (2) after killing or injuring a person due to a traffic accident” as prescribed by Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The key issue of the instant case is ① Whether the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures or report under Article 54(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act after killing or injuring a person due to a traffic accident; ② whether the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for the said reason was in violation of the law of deviation or abuse of discretion.
B. On July 4, 2014, the judgment of the court of first instance held that, with respect to the issue ①, the Plaintiff parked the instant vehicle in front of the Cridge located in Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu, on July 4, 2014, and deemed that the former wife, who escaped with only KRW 0,000,00 at the time of divorce, was boarding and getting on the instant vehicle at the time of divorce, and that, in order to predict this, the Defendant 1 driven the instant vehicle, which was driven by the victim F, who was on the right-hand side of the instant vehicle, and driven by the central line from the bridge to the bridge on the face of the death and injury, led to a shock of the part on the left-hand side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
Accordingly, the injured FF suffered injury, such as catum catum, which requires treatment for about two weeks, and the injured vehicle was destroyed to the extent that it needs repair equivalent to approximately KRW 3,930,000. The injured vehicle also destroyed the rear catum and damaged the front part of the vehicle. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle without any relief measures against the injured party after the said traffic accident while driving the instant vehicle.