beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.05.20 2020구단4638

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

At around 23:40 on July 31, 2019, the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle in CT-gu in the influence of alcohol level 0.184% on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on the road (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”), was driven by the victim D, who tried to change the vehicle from the left-hand and U-turn line to the left-hand or U-turn line, without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim for about two weeks of the vehicle in the T-gu drive (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), but the Plaintiff immediately stopped the vehicle and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim.

On October 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “A driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was revoked on the ground that “A driver was unable to take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim while driving the instant motor vehicle due to the instant traffic accident while driving the motor vehicle.”

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on November 14, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on February 4, 2020.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1 내지 3, 5호증, 을 제1 내지 9호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 이 사건 처분의 적법 여부 원고의 주장 원고는 택시가 보복운전을 목적으로 자신을 �아 왔다고 생각하였지 이 사건 교통사고 때문일 것으로 생각하지 않았다.

In addition, there was no human and physical damage due to the traffic accident in this case.

Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the intention of escape, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful.

The above circumstances and the driving distance of this case are only 500 meters, the plaintiff's driving without accident between 10 years, the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation of drinking driving of this case, and the plaintiff's working from the company as a designer, and thus the driver's license of this case is granted.