logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.11.26 2013구단3591
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 March 19, 1986, the Plaintiff respectively acquired a Class-I ordinary car driving license (license No. B), and (2) No. 31, October 31, 1990, a Class-I large automobile driving license (license number as above).

B. On May 11, 2013, at around 23:15, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the instant vehicle by driving Cone Starex Corresponding (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) sought a parking place at a speed of 10km per hour in front of the Eteel located in D’s right line at a speed of 10km; (c) immediately after the right side of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff left the right side of the instant vehicle by shocking the instant vehicle and making it go beyond the F’s floor in the instant case (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (d) immediately stopped the instant vehicle to take measures such as providing relief to the victim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s respective drivers’ licenses as of July 24, 2013 pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but received a dismissal ruling on August 20, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not recognize the occurrence of the instant accident, and does not escape from the natural park site without knowing the existence of the cause for disposition.

(2) The deviation of discretionary power and the Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse are responsible for the livelihood of the wife and children while operating the water purifier sales management business.

arrow