(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.05 2018구단2647

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.05 2018구단2647

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 7, 1994, the Plaintiff obtained a driver's license for a Class II motor vehicle on November 26, 1997, and obtained a Class II driver's license on November 26, 1997, but was revoked on March 10, 1998 by driving under the influence of alcohol of at least 0.1%. On October 26, 2000, the Plaintiff obtained a Class I driver's license for a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of at least 0.084% on August 19, 201, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver's license by driving under the influence of alcohol of at least 0.056% on September 3, 2006.

B. On March 15, 2018, at around 00:10, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.078% from the front floor of the C building in Silung City to the front floor of E in D at the same time, and was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.078%, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving approximately 50 meters of the F PPP (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

C. On March 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff at least three times as stated in the preceding paragraph to revoke the license for driving motor vehicles stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 13, 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 through the drinking driving of this case; the person who tried to use the substitute driving on the day of the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff's blood alcohol level is minor at the time of the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff must frequently move to the construction site as a manager at small construction site; the average distance of commuting is about 120 km; thus, the driver's license is essential. The plaintiff is the plaintiff.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.08 2018구단1033

-수원지방법원 2019.03.20 2018구단4704

-수원지방법원 2019.01.16 2017구단7430

-수원지방법원 2019.02.20 2018구단4599

-수원지방법원 2018.09.05 2018구단2289