logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.12.19 2018구단11679
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 May 25, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a motor vehicle in front of the instant crosswalk 800-2 Lee Dong-won 5 apartment commercial building in order to drive the motor vehicle on April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff left the front part of the motor vehicle and left the crosswalk on the right side of the right side of the road while in violation of the signal.”

B. On August 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 11, 15, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff did not discover and concealed a baby who has been laid down in the on-and-off line while passing the crosswalk, immediately after the accident, the plaintiff stopped the vehicle and requested the witness to photograph the vehicle's number plate and report it to the police. In light of the fact that the driver's license is essential for long distance medical treatment while supporting the wife who has a disability, the disposition of this case constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments, i.e., the occurrence of a traffic accident frequently and the result thereof are significant as a motor vehicle becomes a mass means of transportation today, so it is necessary to confirm whether the driver who caused the accident did not have a first priority in the case of causing a traffic accident by intention or negligence, and, if a person is different, there is a great need for public interest to implement appropriate relief measures accordingly.

arrow