(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.31 2017구단252

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) 창원지방법원 2017.05.31 2017구단252

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On February 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2 motor vehicles) as of March 28, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-ro motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.21% (the result of blood gathering) on the front of the Green church (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 16, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality and is an abuse of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s substitute driver driven a drinking-free distance of about 10 meters to allow the Plaintiff to detect the Plaintiff’s car; and (b) the Plaintiff’s moving to a place with severe disabilities that the Plaintiff could not walk and engaging in commercial activities to maintain his family’s livelihood by maintaining his family’s livelihood.

B. In today's judgment, since traffic accidents caused by drinking driving frequently occur and the results are harsh, it is very important to protect the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative act, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The degree of the plaintiff's driving constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the disposition of this case

참조조문

-도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.09.27 2017구단559

-창원지방법원 2017.03.29 2017구단177

-창원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017구단10921

-창원지방법원 2018.02.06 2018구단44

-창원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017구단11054