logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.13 2015구단32265
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 April 6, 199, the Plaintiff acquired and driven a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) and driven a car driving on December 22 and 40, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the lane to a one-lane in order to drive a car on the road in front of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and caused the injury of a frighter’s escape in need of approximately four weeks of medical treatment, resulting in a traffic accident involving approximately KRW 1,689,978 of repair cost, and escaped without any rescue measures.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on February 2, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 23, 2015, but was dismissed on June 26, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class 4 and 15 Evidence Nos. 4 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s promise time was set away from the scene of an accident at the latest at the time of the accident, but the Plaintiff did not immediately take measures such as providing assistance to casualties on December 27, 2014, 100 hours after the occurrence of the accident. However, if the Plaintiff filed a voluntary report within 48 hours after the occurrence of the accident, the Plaintiff’s major business constitutes a voluntary report as stipulated in [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for the imposition of a certain penalty points, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential due to the delivery of sampling, the Plaintiff has no history of drinking driving or accident for 16 years, and the Plaintiff agreed with the victim, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, and 14 of Eul, the police officers after the accident of this case shall be assigned to the site and the number plate of the plaintiff's vehicle shall be assigned to the site.

arrow