logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.06.18 2015구단250
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 December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff (acquisition of a Class I ordinary driver’s license on April 23, 1979) driven a vehicle B (tax) on the roads near the Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while driving a vehicle at around 0.175% of the blood alcohol concentration on December 20, 2014, and caused damage to the driver at the same time.

B. Accordingly, on January 27, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of January 26, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on January 27, 2015, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in the commercial building on the day of the instant case, while drinking a half-way with meals, but the head of the house was clear and long-hour dialogue with the son, which led to the instant case. The Plaintiff’s mistake was made in the middle of the instant case. The Plaintiff’s mistake was late, and the Plaintiff had a good driving experience without any traffic offense even though 36 years have passed since the acquisition of the driver’s license. The Defendant paid a large amount of debt by supporting the son, mother, and her wife who lived with all diseases while living together with his own taxi business. When the driver’s license was revoked, the instant disposition constitutes an abuse of discretionary power or a deviation from the scope of discretionary power due to excessive disadvantages to the Plaintiff and her family members compared to the public interest to be achieved by cancelling the Plaintiff’s driver’s license.

arrow