beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.10.14 2020구단51306

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On May 21, 2019, around 15:53 on May 21, 2019, the Plaintiff driven a cexton sports van on the front side of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with the central line of yellow solid lines for which the UPton is not allowed to do so.

D (hereinafter “victims”) was driving a motorcycle at the time and driving it on the side side. The Plaintiff’s driver’s knife the driver’s knife and knife the driver’s knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

The Plaintiff left the instant traffic accident site without taking measures, such as aiding the victim, after temporarily stopping.

On September 9, 2019, the Defendant revoked the driver’s license (Class 1 common) on the ground that “In spite of having injured persons due to the instant traffic accident, the Defendant did not take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victims” against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on November 14, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on December 20, 2019.

On the other hand, on April 29, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Plaintiff to a conviction of a fine of KRW 3 million in relation to the crime (2019 High Court Decision 201Da1868), which became final and conclusive on May 7, 2020.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 11, 12, and 14, and Eul evidence 1 through 11, and the purport of the entire pleading of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is an unfolding accident, and the plaintiff thought that at the time of the unfolding accident, the plaintiff was responsible for the negligence of himself, and the accident of this case