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 December 2, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 29, 2014; effective November 19, 2014; hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: D) was revoked as of January 4, 2015, on the ground that: (b) the Plaintiff had driven a 206-dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”); and (c) the Plaintiff escaped without performing on-site relief measures or reporting obligation; and (d) the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: D) was revoked as of November 4, 2015.
B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on December 29, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 13, 2015.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 25 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the reason for disposition was found to be against the victim E even in the front right side of the plaintiff's vehicle, and immediately after the accident, the plaintiff stopped about about 30 seconds and stopped several times to the victim E, and the victim E was aware that there was no particular problem. Since the victim E did not recognize that the victim E suffered injury due to the traffic accident in this case, the disposition in this case, which was based on the premise that the victim E did not rescue the victim, was illegal. 2) The plaintiff abused the discretion immediately after the traffic accident in this case, although the victim E did not know that the victim E was fine, the plaintiff did not have any reason to escape. The plaintiff was in charge of the business department at all at work, and the plaintiff was in charge of the business department at all times.