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. At around 19:40 on December 11, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a ice vehicle on the front side of the passenger intersection road located in the Sincheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, in the course of its duty, had the driver of the said vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), who caused a traffic accident requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment, by taking the vehicle behind the vehicle in front of the signal in front of the said vehicle due to negligence in the course of duty, and failed to stop immediately and stop the said vehicle without taking necessary measures.
B. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take rescue measures despite having caused a traffic accident.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 20, 2017 regarding the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on March 24, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the ground for disposition is a minor contact accident, and the plaintiff immediately left the accident and examined the status of the victim, and judged that there is no need for relief in view of the victim's condition and behavior. The defendant's disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff does not have the duty to take relief measures under Article 54 of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) Taking full account of the following factors: the plaintiff's deviation and abuse of discretion's driver's license is essential for his family's livelihood as a person engaged in freight truck driver's business; the plaintiff's loan obligation to be repaid is considerably minor; on the other hand, the victim's damage and agreement is reached with the victim.