(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.22 2019구단3517

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) 수원지방법원 2019.11.22 2019구단3517

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 March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.061% of alcohol level.

B. After that, at around 06:40 on June 30, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.034% of alcohol level, was driving a 5 km motor vehicle at Birsmom from the Anyang-si, Anyang-si to the front road of the 432 luminous lusium.

C. On July 12, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the driver’s license stated in the claim against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2019, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been driving under the influence of alcohol again (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the plaintiff's argument is that the plaintiff thought that the plaintiff had been able to sleep on the night before the drinking driving day and had been able to sleep on the vehicle, and that the plaintiff had been able to drive on the vehicle, that there was no physical and physical damage due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, that the distance of driving is relatively short of 4 km, that the plaintiff would not drive under the influence of alcohol again, that the plaintiff would go against and again, and that the plaintiff will not drive under the influence of drinking again, and that the plaintiff will continue to work as a maintenance company until recently, and now is a side business. Accordingly, when the license is revoked, it is difficult to start this day, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to seek a new workplace in the future, because the plaintiff suffers from rare diseases and suffers from rare diseases, and therefore the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and has abused discretion.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and subparagraph 2 of the same Article are engaged in driving under the influence of alcohol.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.01.22 2019구단2118

-수원지방법원 2020.04.24 2019구단4985

-수원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019구단3913

-수원지방법원 2020.11.27 2020구단3780