logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.05.07 2019구합1109
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 July 6, 2019, around 23:50 on July 6, 2019, the Plaintiff driven CMW car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.119% at a multi-family housing parking lot located in Namyang-si, B.

B. On August 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 23, 2019, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was made on November 19, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 11 through 15 evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① the Plaintiff’s driving distance is merely one-half meters and thus does not have any human and material damage, such as traffic accidents, and ② the Plaintiff actively cooperate in the investigation by making a confession of the crime from the right to control, ② The Plaintiff is a business employee who is absolutely in need of a driver’s license due to the occupational characteristics, and if the said license is revoked, it is difficult for the Plaintiff and his family members to live, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).

arrow