(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.10.20 2017구단23325

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) 서울행정법원 2017.10.20 2017구단23325

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 April 16, 2017, the Plaintiff, while driving a B K5 car and staying at around 18:13, caused a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) that shocks the victim’s left-hand elbow part of the victim, coming up in the same direction by using the right edge of the road, while driving the C-B road to the public health clinic at the right edge of the reservoir.

B. On May 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant accident and did not take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victims, even though having injured the victims.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on June 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not recognize the occurrence of the accident of this case at the time, and therefore did not have the intention of escape.

B) The victim’s injury cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act is nothing more than annoyed person. 2) The Plaintiff did not recognize the occurrence of the instant accident. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain the livelihood and work, the instant disposition is deemed to be an abuse of discretion.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the written evidence Nos. 3 and 6 evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff opened and operated a window for a car driven at the time; ② the instant accident was shocked to the extent of having to come to contact with the said vehicle; and immediately after the occurrence of the accident, the Plaintiff’s husband was able to come to dives. ③

참조조문

-형법 제257조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구단29828

-부산지방법원 2016.11.09 2016구단777

-대구지방법원 2016.07.22 2015구합24255

-서울행정법원 2017.09.25 2017구단68878

-서울행정법원 2017.09.01 2017구단13557