자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part added as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The following shall be added to the 3rd end of the 16th page: “The instant accident occurred at a crosswalk in front of the right to the elementary school.”
(4) Therefore, the plaintiff should have been driving with due care at any place.
The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the damaged students were shocked with the back balle of their own vehicles.
However, as a result of the investigation of CCTV images near the site, the police officer who investigated the relevant criminal case confirmed that the victimized student was walking the crosswalk in opposition from the elementary school.
(6) The Plaintiff asserted to the same effect as in the instant case in the course of the investigation of the relevant criminal case, and stated to the effect that it is inconsistent with the fact that a victim, who was presented CCTV images from police officers, reported him/her to a crosswalk from an elementary school to a crosswalk at the time of the accident, but is not accurate at the time of the accident.
(7) In the relevant criminal case, the injured student testified to the effect that “I kne and kne are faced with cars and kne in the crosswalk.”
(A) Furthermore, insofar as it can be deemed that the injured student was walking the crosswalk, the form of walking in the crosswalk of the injured student does not have any particular influence on the existence of the Plaintiff’s negligence.
In addition, the injured student was the age of 8 years old at the time of the accident.
Therefore, even if the injured student was given an answer after the accident in this case, he/she should have taken necessary measures against the injured student.
[Attachment]
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.