(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019구단754

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 2019.05.15 2019구단754

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. The Plaintiff acquired a Class I driver’s license on March 18, 2002, but was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license on March 12, 2003 due to drinking (0.085% of blood alcohol level) and was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license on September 6, 2005 (0.171% of blood alcohol level). On February 8, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I driver’s license on February 1, 2007. On December 20:34, 2018, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol on March 12, 2003, was subject to the disposition of the disposition of the driver’s license on September 6, 2005, he/she acquired a Class I driver’s license on February 1, 2007 (B) with a large alcohol level of 0.148% alcohol level around the F elementary intersection located in E (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

B. On December 27, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was trying to use the substitute driver immediately before the drinking driving of this case, and he was driving on the same day with a lot of knife after being diving, so there was a very low possibility of criticism and danger about the drinking driving of this case. The plaintiff is an article dealing with the 3.5 tons of cargo, and the plaintiff must carry heavy stuffs on the vehicle and transport them to a customer who is scattered across the country. Therefore, the driver's license is essential for the maintenance of livelihood. The plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigation agency and reflects the need for the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff must support the mother of the drinking, bear household debts, etc., and the plaintiff caused a minor contact accident due to the drinking driving of this case.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.29 2018구단1842

-수원지방법원 2019.10.02 2019구단2897

-수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2019구단549

-수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2019구단3753

-수원지방법원 2019.07.17 2019구단1993