logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.13 2020구단6543
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 February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.113% of alcohol level.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at around 21:30 on November 21, 2019, driven two meters of the 20th alcohol level (0.037% of the blood alcohol level) on the Bone Star and the B one-way road in Busan City.

C. On December 28, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I driver’s license for the Plaintiff on December 28, 2019, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving again under the influence of drinking alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 18, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s act of drinking alcohol in this case should be deemed as constituting a legitimate act or an emergency evacuation, since the Plaintiff’s act of driving alcohol in this case was a bean field, not a road, at the place where the Plaintiff driven alcohol in this case, the place where the Plaintiff driven alcohol was not a road, but a bean field where the Plaintiff driven alcohol in this case.

(i) (i) As seen above, the Plaintiff’s driving of the van was for preventing illegal activities, and the drinking level was insignificant and the distance of driving was very short, and the Plaintiff is in charge of driving the van at the riding place and farm operated by the above E, and the Plaintiff is in charge of operating the rolling stock and the rolling stock necessary for its operation, so it is difficult to perform its duties when the driver’s license is revoked, and there is no physical and physical damage due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving.

arrow