logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.21 2016구단7761
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 August 28, 1972, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license for a large motor vehicle (B) on September 7, 1991, and around 01:40 on March 19, 2016, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident where the driving of the Clearning motor vehicle is under the influence of alcohol at 0.121% of the blood alcohol concentration at around 01:40 on March 19, 201.

B. Accordingly, on March 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on May 3, 2016, but was dismissed on May 30, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a student’s employee in the New World High Tourist Zone who works as a student’s school bus engineer, and thus his family’s livelihood is essential when his driver’s license is revoked, and it is unlawful that the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s discretion is excessively harsh and constitutes a deviation or abuse of the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority.

B. In today’s rise in the number of vehicles, and the number of driver’s licenses is issued in large volume, so the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing as traffic conditions are congested, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequent 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 grounds of drunk driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.

arrow