logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.08.19 2016구합50035
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. On January 4, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 00:40% of alcohol level, was found to have driven approximately five kilometers in front of Chuncheon-si C in front of the trade name after the Mancheon-si Gangwon University (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), while driving approximately five kilometers in front of the trade name after the Mancheon-si University.

B. On January 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke both Class I ordinary driving licenses and Class I large driving licenses, and Class I special driving licenses (D) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 32, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was trying to return home through a substitute driver, but the Plaintiff was trying to return home as soon as possible by not receiving a telephone from the substitute driver. The Plaintiff had no record of drinking driving prior to the instant case, the Plaintiff would lose his status as a public official in the event the instant disposition is finalized, and for the purpose of maintaining a livelihood, the instant disposition is deemed to have been excessively harsh to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest purpose to be achieved by the said disposition, and is unlawful as it deviates from or abused the discretion.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, including the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.

arrow