logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.06.19 2020구단768
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 December 26, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) around 21:55, on the front of the racing, while under the influence of alcohol 0.094% of alcohol level, the Plaintiff driven Crocketing car (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On January 8, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of February 5, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 3, 2020.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After leaving the place of the instant case, the Plaintiff 20:40 to 21:30 on the day of the instant case, while driving a so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called a so-called so-called “dacting alcohol level of 0.094% measured by the Plaintiff as it fell under a so-called so-called “dacting alcohol level” at the time of so-called a so-called so-called “dacting alcohol level of 0.094%.” 2) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff has no history of driving alcohol; (b) the Plaintiff refers to two children; (c) the Plaintiff is in charge of on-site management; (d) the Plaintiff is in a large amount of debt; and (e) the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is considerably excessive compared to the public interest protected by the instant disposition; and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

B. As to the assertion that the blood alcohol concentration of the first blood alcohol level has been measured excessively, it is reasonable from the completion of the operation in a situation where it is impossible to determine whether the blood alcohol level at the time of drinking is the rise point of blood alcohol level or the summer point of time.

arrow