logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.22 2018구단2357
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 May 3, 199, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and around March 12, 2018, around 23:46, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level 0.178% ( blood collection reduction points) from the place in the Seo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the same in the street of Gwangjin-gu, Seoul to the 30th century.

B. On April 4, 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 June 5, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident for about 20 years, and the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident even through the drunk driving in this case, the plaintiff used a usual driving, the possibility of criticism and danger of the drinking driving in this case, the plaintiff's driving is very low, and the vehicle driving is essential for the plaintiff to conduct his duties, such as external promotion events and events at the market, etc., with an external member of the vehicle sales company, and the plaintiff actively cooperate and reflects with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving in this case, and the plaintiff must support his spouse and 30 months, and bear household debts, etc., the disposition in this case is in violation of discretionary authority and abuse.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, the substance of the offense as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances pertaining thereto.

arrow