자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around 18:30 on April 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) as of August 14, 2016 pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident where the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle of the front-class C located in the Da-gun, Sinnam-gun, and was driving the vehicle of the front-class B, and the Plaintiff was shocked on the left-hand side of the victim, who was coming from the front-round, to the right-hand side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) and did not take necessary measures or file a report (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 21, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not recognize the fact that the instant accident occurred and the fact that the victim sustained injury, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful. (2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was an essential situation in order to assist the Plaintiff’s husband’s diagnosis and treatment in a place where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use public transportation, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was an elementary school for the grandchildren, etc.,
B. The statements Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the judgment Nos. 1 are considered as a combination of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the following circumstances that are recognized as follows: (a) the impact of the car driven by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident was reasonable to the point that the rear-down of the car met with the victim's left-hand arms and the victim's right-hand arms; (b) the Plaintiff proceeded about about 30 meters after the instant accident, and (c) the victim re-exponed the right-hand border after the instant accident.