logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.31 2016구단2383
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) on January 11, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driver as indicated in the separate facts constituting the crime (hereinafter “instant drunk driver’s license”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Eul Nos. 1, 6-11 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) An error may arise in the blood alcohol concentration value. 2) Taking into account the fact that the operation of the business is urgently needed, and when the driver’s license is revoked, the Plaintiff and his family’s livelihood is prevented and the parent and the father’s family’s support are significantly impeded, the revocation of the license and the disqualified period of two years constitutes abuse of discretionary power by excessively aggravated the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Even if the administrative judgment on the same facts is not bound by the fact-finding in the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal judgment which became final and conclusive was guilty of the same facts is significant evidence, and thus, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a judgment on the facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du28240, May 24, 2012; 2007Da69148, Feb. 14, 2008). The Plaintiff received the summary order from the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2015Da30499, Jun. 30, 2015, and the above summary order became final and conclusive (the purport of the entire pleadings, the purport of the summary order, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no special circumstance to recognize the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration as stated in the separate order.

arrow