beta
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 December 13, 1975, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 driver’s license for large vehicles (B) on August 24, 1981.
On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a private taxi owned by the Plaintiff on April 17:55, 2014; (b) proceeded in front of the road from the road that is going through in the direction of Nam in the direction of Namnam-gu, Namnam-si, Namnam-si; (c) caused an accident of causing injury to the driver of a damaged vehicle requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment; and (d) immediately stopping the vehicle without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.
B. Accordingly, on May 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 13, 2014, but was dismissed on July 8, 2014.
[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’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s driver of the victimized vehicle did not have to take relief measures because there was no injury, and the Plaintiff did not have any intention to flee. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful in light of the Plaintiff’s excessive burden on the part of the Plaintiff, even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff had escaped without taking relief measures, the Plaintiff’s living by his own taxi driver, but the Plaintiff is living with his own taxi driver, but the Plaintiff’s driver was unable to drive his own taxi upon revocation of his driver’s license, and the possibility of being employed in other locations due to age, etc., resulting in enormous difficulties in his livelihood. The Plaintiff agreed with the victim, and the Plaintiff did not have any criminal acts since 1979, and was living in good quantity, and thus, the instant disposition is deemed to have abused the Defendant’s discretion.
(b) 6 to 6.