logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.25 2019구단2620
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 August 18, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for a motorcycle and Class I driver’s license on May 1, 1995. However, on August 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license on the ground that he/she caused a traffic accident by drinking and physical damage (0.192% blood alcohol level). On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff again acquired a Class II driver’s license (B) on August 3, 2018, and on the same day from the front day of the Manyang-si Man-si, Ansan-si to the same D apartment at around 01:36%, while under the influence of alcohol, he/she sustained approximately 600 driver’s license for a vehicle of Category I, while driving the vehicle of Category II with approximately 600 meters of alcohol level on the right side of the passenger vehicle in front of the Hanyang-gu Office in front of the two straight line in front of the two straight line.

B. On May 15, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of 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 July 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving immediately before the driving of the instant drinking, and the possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the instant drinking, and the plaintiff currently holds office in the H Yang shop store store, and is in charge of the delivery service while selling the instant driving.

arrow