(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018구단4216

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 2018.12.12 2018구단4216

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 March 3, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a Class 2 ordinary driver’s license on February 28, 201; (b) obtained a Class 1 driver’s license on February 28, 201; (c) while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license by causing personal traffic accidents (one regular person and three injured person). On December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on December 7, 2016; and (d) on August 20:33, 2018, at the Do physician, located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, or under the influence of alcohol 0.169% ( blood collection appraisal) under the influence of alcohol on the street, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license.

B. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license for driving under 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 October 17, 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 through the driving of the instant case, the plaintiff was using a usual driving, and the plaintiff tried to use the substitute driving immediately before the driving of the instant case. The possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the instant case was significantly low, and the plaintiff is in charge of the business of producing reinforced booms by Albrecing work at the factory producing PC file incidental equipment. However, when an emergency situation occurs to the mother who has a crypt and high blood pressure, the driver's license is essential for the hospital's license, and the plaintiff is related to the drinking driving of the instant case.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.01.23 2018구단4612

-수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018구단4230

-수원지방법원 2019.01.30 2018구단9655

-수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단3626

-수원지방법원 2018.08.13 2018구단7451