logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.21 2019구단7397
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 February 22, 2019, at around 21:50, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B B B BW sport car; (b) concealed a motor vehicle in front of Kimpo-si in front of Kimpo-si for signal, resulting in an injury to the driver of the damaged motor vehicle requiring approximately two-day medical treatment; (c) at the same time, the Plaintiff immediately stopped the damaged motor vehicle and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though it destroyed the damaged motor vehicle.

B. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures or report on the Plaintiff’s injury.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on June 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was driving in a two-lane, and the Plaintiff was trying to see the taxi in the front of the two-lane due to the lack of mind, even though the part on the right corner of the victim’s vehicle, following the vehicle in the traffic signal at the first lane, and attempted to take the accident management on the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s own taxi proceeding in the future, and did not escape without taking necessary measures to cause the Plaintiff to injure a person due to a traffic accident.

B. The following circumstances are that there is no dispute between the parties to the case or that can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s proceeding along the two-lanes of the three-lane roads and the left turn to the right at the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s stop by the stop signal at one-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane roads.

arrow