본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대구지방법원 2019.06.28 2019구단434

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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


1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 ordinary and class 2 motorcycle) as of December 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.154% at the front of the C cafeteria located in B at the time of stay (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 22, 2019.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff used a substitute driver after drinking alcohol; (b) the Plaintiff sent a substitute driver on the wind that the Plaintiff appeared to be urgent at the time when the Plaintiff entered the house; and (c) the Plaintiff was driving to park; (d) the distance at the time was very short; (e) the Plaintiff’s spouse’s workplace is in charge of accounting and repair of parts; (e) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is necessary to perform his/her duties; (g) the instant disposition made it very difficult for the Plaintiff to 5 years, 3 years, son’s clinic and hospital, etc. when the driver’s license was revoked; and (e) the instant disposition is in contravention of the Plaintiff’s depth, and thus, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing discretionary power.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

b) the Commission;