logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.25 2016구단25881
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 March 31, 201, the Plaintiff obtained Class I driver’s license on January 16, 2002, Class I driver’s license on September 14, 201, Class II driver’s license on September 14, 201, Class II driver’s license on April 18, 201, and on May 23, 201, and was controlled by the police while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.137% in front of Jongno-gu Seoul, Seoul.

B. On June 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking all of the above driver’s licenses against the Plaintiff on the ground of drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1, 2, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff alleged the violation of the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making is deemed to have driven a motor vehicle that can be driven with a Class I ordinary driver’s license, and thus the revocation of the first class ordinary driver’s license. However, the instant disposition was unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s revocation of all other non-related driver’s license is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s revocation of abuse of discretionary power is illegal. 2) The driving distance is merely 2 km, the driving distance is an exemplary driving for 15 years, the police’s drinking control and investigation, and actively cooperate in the police’s drinking control and investigation. In light of all circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. Article 93(1) main text and Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which was amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016, entered into force, as of January 27, 2016, to determine the allegation of violation of the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making 1, where a person who obtained a driver’s license not a student license drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1)

arrow