logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.05.12 2020구단395
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 October 1, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol of 0.093% of alcohol level around 00:36.

B. Accordingly, on October 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a notification of revocation of a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on December 17, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the following: (a) there was no fact of damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case; (b) the distance of movement is relatively short of 3 km; (c) the person was in use of a proxy driving at the time of drinking alcohol; (d) the confession; and (e) the insurance solicitor’s active cooperation in the detection of drinking driving; (c) the occupational driver’s license of the relevant company is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked; (d) the maintenance of livelihood, family support support; (e) the payment of debt is difficult when the company cancels the driver’s license; and (e) the company was appointed by the team leader, etc., the instant disposition is far more than

B. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual’s disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the act of disposition in question, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000). If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the disposition standards per se are not in conformity with the Constitution or law, or are in line with the above disposition standards, and relevant statutes

arrow