beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.17 2019구단2019

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 8, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 2 driver's license for a Class 2 motorcycle, on June 13, 2003, and was revoked on October 4, 2004 due to a drinking driving (0.138%). On August 15, 2005, the Plaintiff was subject to a special amnesty measure against the offender of the Road Traffic Act on August 15, 2005.

B. On November 7, 2005, the Plaintiff again acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license (B) on November 7, 2005. On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff stopped the front road of the C building in the direction of the new city from the offward to the one-lane 4 lanes in the direction of the new city, while driving the HG passenger’s vehicle in the direction of the said new city. However, the Plaintiff failed to perform the duty of the front-time driver’s license and neglected the victim’s E driver’s duty and led the victim to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in the injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc., requiring a two-day medical treatment (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). However, the Plaintiff stopped immediately without taking measures such as aiding the said victim.

C. On April 11, 2019, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff that caused the instant traffic accident and did not take necessary measures; and (b) revoked the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed on May 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the victim E was not injured due to the instant traffic accident, and that there was no need for the Plaintiff to immediately stop and take measures, such as aiding the said victim. 2)