(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2014구단10535

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2014구단10535

자동차운전면허정지처분취소

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 15:50 on April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B rocketing taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) on the front of the department store located in Seo-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”); (b) caused an accident to shocking the CSS3 car (hereinafter “instant accident”); (c) one of the two taxi passengers operating on the right side of the ongoing direction toward the right side; (d) two of the instant taxi passengers, one of the two taxi passengers, two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the instant taxi passengers, and two of the two of the two of the other vehicle and four of the other passengers, respectively, sustained two of the two of the two of the two preceding directions.

B. On May 13, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition suspending the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for a period of 50 days from June 22, 2013 pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the other party’s vehicle was already entering the intersection and was proceeding, but the Plaintiff violated the duty of safe driving, resulting in the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the instant accident, and that the accumulated penalty points for one year exceeds the suspension standard of the driver’s license as 50 points (in the case of breach of safety driving duty: 10 points, 15 points, 15 points, and 25 points).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In the case of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant accident intersection, there was “sulping, etc.” in the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding, and there was “sulping, etc.” in the direction of the other vehicle’s proceeding, but the Plaintiff confirmed that no vehicle exists on the right and the right at the time of entering the intersection and entered the intersection, but even though the other party’s vehicle entered the intersection, it did not temporarily stop on the stop line, and rather entered the intersection without temporarily stopping on the stop line, and caused the instant accident.

Therefore, this case.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제2항

-도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.10.24 2014구단710

-대전지방법원 2020.08.13 2020구단101876

-서울고등법원 2015.12.11 2014누71209

-수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2018구단7093

-부산지방법원 2020.03.18 2019구단21003