logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.29 2015구단784
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale) as of November 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A Plaintiff driven a B-low vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.11% on the front of the monthly square-distance signal apparatus located in the Young-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”) at around September 4, 2015.

(A) On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the ground that the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal on November 18, 2015.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s assertion deviatess from and abused discretion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to support his/her family by engaging in his/her occupation, such as operating a restaurant and driving of an cafeteriaing vehicle.

B. In light of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today's judgment and the fact that the results are harsh, etc., the necessity of public interest is very great (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). The Plaintiff's drinking level falls under the criteria for revoking driver's license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is considerably unreasonable, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had an inevitable situation to make the disposition of this case, and that the Plaintiff had the history of suspending the driver's license due to drinking driving even before the instant case.

arrow