logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.01.11 2016구단16474
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 March 22, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary and B) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act, May 3, 2016, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle at around 19:35 on March 22, 2016, was a vehicle waiting for signal on the same lane in the same direction while driving a four-lane road in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) the Plaintiff neglected his/her duty of care to safely drive his/her vehicle in the same direction while he/she was negligent in doing so; and (c) caused the collision of the part on the left side of the victim’s e-driving car going into the same direction while driving the vehicle on the right side of the Plaintiff; and (d) did not take necessary measures such as aiding the said victims.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 18, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and issued a summary order on the ground that he/she had escaped without any rescue measures despite having caused a traffic accident involving the victim E, etc., and the Plaintiff filed a request for formal trial with Seoul Central District Court 2016Da3085, but was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million by the above court. The above judgment became final and conclusive around

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 10 evidence, Eul 1, 11, 12 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the conflict between the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is minor and that the two weeks’ medical certificate can be issued easily, it cannot be deemed that the victims suffered injury due to the traffic accident, and the Plaintiff.

arrow