(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.09.27 2017구단559

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 2017.09.27 2017구단559

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around 00:08 on May 4, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 general, class 2 common, and class 2 motor vehicles) as of June 22, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B cco-sports motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.212% on the front of the Agricultural Technology Center located in the luminous Bag (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to work as a fire pipeline sprink and maintained his family’s livelihood, the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused and abused discretion, considering that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential and the distance of drinking is about 1 km.

B. In light of the fact that today's judgment today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff's drinking level 0.212% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable according to the criteria, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff

참조조문

-도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.11.07 2017구단702

-창원지방법원 2017.03.14 2017구단108

-창원지방법원 2017.09.19 2017구단498

-창원지방법원 2018.01.23 2017구단887

-창원지방법원 2017.03.14 2017구단16