logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.27 2014구단2428
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of August 24, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B vehicles with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.152% at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, as Seoul, on May 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was in office as a member of the liquor company, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential due to the occupational characteristics of the company, the revocation of the driver’s license is extremely difficult for family members to live, he voluntarily reported to the police after drunk driving, and there is no history of drinking driving and traffic accident before the instant case, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it goes against the discretionary authority, since it is excessively excessive disadvantages suffered by

B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). The Plaintiff’s revocation does not seem to have any inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking driving at the time of the instant case.

arrow