beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of June 28, 2014, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was driving a B-car on April 2, 2014 and driving a Gyeong-dong located in the B-dong in the B-si, an accident for towing D-car operated by C (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the Defendant suffered an injury for about two weeks in need of treatment; and (c) the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking measures such as providing relief to the victim; and (d) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked on June 28, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After the instant accident, the Plaintiff: (a) sought compensation to the victim who was landed from the instant vehicle; (b) however, the victim and his behaviors threatened the Plaintiff while taking a bath; and (c) the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having escaped because the Plaintiff, who was fright and frighted to the other victims of the instant accident, and reported to the police station on the booming and frighting to the other victims; and (b) the instant accident is a minor drilling accident, and there was no occurrence of injury to the victimized vehicle driver.
3) The plaintiff is currently driving a substitute vehicle at the home-based company and needs a driver's license for livelihood. As such, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it goes against the discretionary authority because it is excessively harsh. (B) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to the first argument, comprehensively taking into account the following as to the determination of the first argument, Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 3-4, and No. 5, the plaintiff was presumed to have caused the accident of this case, and the victim C demanded the plaintiff to leave the vehicle at the scene immediately after the accident, and the plaintiff arrived at the scene immediately after the accident, and the plaintiff arrived at the scene, and the victim was able to talk with the article and talk.