logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.08 2018구단1767
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 September 29, 199, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and around 03:15 on December 23, 2017, at the entrance of the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-dong Community Center, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the Plaintiff controlled the volume of DNA-learning cars by approximately 3 km driving (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) with approximately 0.182% alcohol level under the influence of alcohol level.

B. On January 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident for about 19 years, and the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident even through the drinking driving of this case. The plaintiff used a usual driving, which is low possibility of criticism, and the plaintiff is in charge of the distribution management as the distance to and from work is 60 km as a training employee, so it is essential to drive the motor vehicle. The plaintiff actively cooperate and reflects with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case. The plaintiff must support his spouse and two children and bears household debts, and the plaintiff is engaged in a blood donation activity, etc., the disposition of this case is in violation of discretionary authority and abuse.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, the determination shall be objectively deliberated on the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.

arrow