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 June 18, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driving license (B) and is driving a private taxi.
B. At around 01:10 on December 18, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act, on January 30, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s private taxi at CK5, which is the Plaintiff’s possession, brought to the left-hand turn at the intersection of the Busan Agricultural and Agricultural Products Center located at the intersection of the Busan Agricultural Products Center located in Bupyeong-si in Bupyeong-si, and caused an accident that caused the driver of the victimized vehicle to suffer bodily injury or damage, such as culf salt, etc., which requires approximately three weeks of treatment, and even without taking relief measures, leaving the site.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 6, 2015, but was dismissed on January 6, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 4 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not recognize the occurrence of the instant traffic accident at the time of the instant traffic accident, and also did not constitute the Plaintiff’s driver of the other party, considering the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the traffic accident, since the Plaintiff was negligent in the other party’s driver rather than the Plaintiff’s negligence, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes the driver of the fugitive vehicle. 2) The Plaintiff did not have the power to drive a drunk and did not receive the penalty for violation of laws and regulations, and when the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked, the Plaintiff’s
B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 11, the plaintiff left the right to the left without turning the signal light at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue.