logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.10.15 2020구단101753
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 24, 2020, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.085% in front of the community hall B in Chungcheong-gun, Cheongyang-gun (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On February 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 28, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1, 2, 4 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On January 24, 2020, at around 21:00, the non-existence of the grounds for disposition: (a) around 23:21,00, the Plaintiff d’E restaurant located in Cheongyang-gun, Cheongyang-gun, she drank 6 remaining alcohol, caused the instant traffic accident due to the instant drunk driving (23:40), and (b) the Plaintiff 0.085% of the blood alcohol concentration at around 23:57 from the police officer dispatched to the police officer to breathe alcohol measurement; and (c) the Plaintiff 0.085% of the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant drunk driving. As such, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant drunk driving is likely to have been lower than 0.080%, which is the criteria for the revocation of driver’s license (hereinafter “the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant drunk driving”).

(2) In light of the overall circumstances, the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretion abused the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff was operating the livestock industry by returning to farming for three years; (b) the driver’s license is essential for the management and operation of livestock pens; (c) having experienced economic difficulties; and (d) having family members to support.

(hereinafter referred to as the “section 2”). (b)

Judgment

1) Determination as to Chapter 1: The interval between the point of drinking alcohol driving and the point of measuring the blood alcohol concentration and the point of time is the rise in the blood alcohol concentration.

arrow