(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.11.13 2015구단11139

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) 대구지방법원 2015.11.13 2015구단11139

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license for the Plaintiff on May 29, 2015 is a Class II driver’s license.

Reasons

1. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, and Class 2) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B car (hereinafter “instant car”) on the front of a corporate bank located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant car”) under the influence of alcohol on May 14, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.19%.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant car cannot be driven with a Class 2 driver’s license, and its revocation is unlawful.

In addition, taking into account all the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s participation in the automobile maintenance business and the need for a driver’s license due to a lot of business trips, the Plaintiff supports the family members with disabilities who have difficulty in living when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant drinking driving is in profoundly against the Plaintiff and volunteer service in the ordinary community. Of the instant disposition, the part concerning the Class II driver’s license among the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In principle, one person can be treated separately in cases where he/she has obtained multiple driver's license as well as revocation thereof. However, in cases where the grounds for revocation are not related to a specific license, but related to a person who has obtained a driver's license, or is related to a person who has obtained a driver's license, and the scope of a vehicle that can be driven with another driver's license is wide and the scope of a vehicle that can be driven with a driver's license is required

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1449 Decided May 24, 2012

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2016.03.31 2016구단51606

-대구지방법원 2015.08.19 2015구단498

-춘천지방법원 2015.04.22 2014구합5123

-대구지방법원 2015.05.15 2014구단3346

-제주지방법원 2014.12.10 2014구합612