(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.24 2018구단3343

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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.24 2018구단3343

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 30, 192, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary car driving license (B), and was subject to a disposition suspending a car driving license on the ground that he/she driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.053% on September 5, 2002. On June 2, 2018, around 23:07, under the influence of alcohol, he/she was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.129% ( blood collection appraisal) on the street in front of the Mannam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, and driven a car at approximately 300 meters (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On July 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; (b) issued a disposition revoking the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was trying to use the substitute driver immediately before the drinking driving of this case. The possibility and risk of criticism on the drinking driving of this case is significantly low, the plaintiff was driving the freight without any particular accident for 4 years, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the drinking driving of this case is minor, the plaintiff's driver's license as cargo driver is essential for the maintenance of his/her livelihood, the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff must support his/her spouse and development disorder 2 and is economically difficult, such as household debts.

B. The scope of discretionary power is determined by social norms.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.29 2018구단1842

-수원지방법원 2018.12.19 2018구단4414

-수원지방법원 2018.10.10 2018구단3244

-수원지방법원 2018.12.19 2018구단4056

-수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018구단4094