beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
On April 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes one regular driver (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) while driving B vehicles on or around December 3, 2014, and did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report, while driving B vehicles (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 18, 2015.
【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 15, and the purport of the entire oral argument as to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the traffic accident of this case. The plaintiff did not immediately stop due to one-way road circumstances at the time, returned to the accident point again, and the victim's injury was not in need of urgent relief measures, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff escaped without any duty to take relief measures under the Road Traffic Act. (2) When considering the circumstances that the driver's license of this case is essential for commuting to and to perform his duties, and the situation that the driver's license of this case should drive for the treatment of his wife, etc., the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is an unlawful disposition beyond the scope of appropriate discretion
Judgment
1) First, as to the existence of the reason for the disposition, the evidence as mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (part of the evidence No. 4 and No. 5) are examined.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8, the plaintiff recognizes the shock of the victim as a vehicle driving at the time of the traffic accident in this case, and hear the sound of the victim.