logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.25 2016구단23564
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 June 5, 2016, at around 22:28, the Plaintiff was drunk with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.095%, and was discovered while driving the CA car on the front side of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On June 21, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, and Class 2) pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in drinking not less than three times on the ground that the Plaintiff had two-time alcohol records (0.10% of blood alcohol concentration on October 3, 2005, and 0.09% of blood alcohol concentration on December 21, 2008).

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is in principle handled separately when one person obtained a multiple kinds of driver’s license, and thus, the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 2 driver’s license is unlawful and thus should be revoked. 2) The Plaintiff was driving after a considerable period of time after drinking on the date the Plaintiff was discovered, the Plaintiff supports unmarried money, and is in an economic difficult situation, such as taking the procedure for recovery of credit, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to maintain his livelihood, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is unlawful as it excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and excessively harshly harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 is amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016, and Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, which enters into force on the same day.

arrow