logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.12.03 2014구단10227
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On July 3, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class large and first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident requiring one ordinary driver’s license while driving B vehicles at around 15:30 on May 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) while failing to comply with on-site relief measures or duty to report.

The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.

【In the absence of dispute, there is no ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul Nos. 1 through 15 (including partial defense numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole argument of the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff as to the whole. However, while driving a bus at the time of the traffic accident of this case, the plaintiff could not be accurately aware of whether the bus fell from the bus, and as the victim immediately left the bus, he did not know of the fact that he did not cause injury by getting the victim away from the bus stairs as a road. Thus, the plaintiff did not escape without intentionally taking relief measures. Thus, the plaintiff's driver's license is essential for performing his duties as a bus driver. Thus, if the driver's license of this case is revoked, it is difficult for his family's livelihood, the victim's damage is minor, and it is so agreed with the victim only smoothly, so the disposition of this case should be revoked unfairly beyond the scope of discretionary authority.

Judgment

1. In full view of all the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4, No. 5, No. 7 through 10, No. 14, and No. 15 as to the existence of the grounds for disposition, the Plaintiff opened a door in advance before the Plaintiff stops a bus while driving the bus at the time of the instant traffic accident.

arrow