logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.07.17 2019구단553
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On March 4, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition for driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have driven a B car under the influence of alcohol 0.079% in the state of alcohol on December 13, 2018, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have been driven on two occasions of alcohol driving (0.064% in blood alcohol concentration) on August 25, 2002 and the alcohol driving (0.068% in blood alcohol concentration) on May 17, 2008.”

B. On March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on April 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, that is a simple driving without causing an accident, and that the instant disposition constitutes deviation from and abuse of discretionary power due to harsh treatment.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow