(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.14 2019구단4411

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) 수원지방법원 2020.02.14 2019구단4411

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 August 29, 2019, at around 01:50, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol of 0.132%, and 200 meters from the front of the “D convenience store” in E, “Fri community hall” in E, from the front of the “D convenience store” in E, to the front of the “Fri community hall.”

B. On September 17, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 5, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the plaintiff's argument did not cause any personal or material damage due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, relatively short distance of driving alcohol, the plaintiff's acquisition of the driver's license that caused a traffic accident or has no record of driving alcohol for about 25 years, and the plaintiff is expected not to drive alcohol again, and the plaintiff is planned to join another company in the future. The plaintiff's main business is the delivery business, and the area in charge is the delivery business, and it is impossible to find employment in the above company because the license is revoked, because it is impossible for the plaintiff to perform its duties, and considering the fact that the plaintiff must support his spouse and two children and have to complete payment of the loan, etc., the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and it has violated the discretionary authority.

B. The scope of discretionary power is determined by social norms.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.03.13 2019구단4435

-수원지방법원 2020.06.05 2020구단934

-수원지방법원 2020.08.14 2020구단1760

-수원지방법원 2021.02.19 2020구단4608

-수원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019구단3180