(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.05.12 2015구단135

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) 창원지방법원 2015.05.12 2015구단135

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 13, 2014, at around 02:25, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.114% alcohol concentration.

B. Accordingly, on August 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary driving licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 13 (including partial defense number), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff worked as a bus driver is necessary to obtain a driver's license for his/her family's livelihood, and considering various circumstances such as the fact that it is difficult to obtain another occupation in the state of health of class 4 with a language disorder, the fact that he/she was friendly and drinking with the mind that he/she was able to see, and that he/she was caused to drive without being able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able

B. 1) In light of the fact that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking is an administrative agency's discretionary act, and today's automobile is a mass means of transportation and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the result of the increase in the driver's license on the ground of drinking, etc., it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). Therefore, when the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized, unlike the revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation. 2) In light of the above legal principle, according to the evidence examined above, the Plaintiff is 14% of the blood alcohol concentration.

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 11. 14. 선고 97누13214 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.09.03 2014구단565

-창원지방법원 2016.02.16 2015구단890

-창원지방법원 2015.04.28 2014구단10388

-창원지방법원 2014.06.10 2013구단10190

-창원지방법원 2015.09.22 2015구단456