logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.14 2017구단740
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (as of May 24, 2017, Class 1, Class 1, Class 2, Class 2, and Class 2,) as of June 18, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA car under the influence of alcohol 0.121% in front of Jinju City C (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 31, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The disposition of this case is unlawful since it is too harsh that the plaintiff driven a about 10-meter distance to move or drive a vehicle, and the plaintiff is deemed to have a driving license in order to maintain his family's livelihood by continuing to perform his/her business duties in the workplace. In light of the fact that the plaintiff has no past history of drinking driving, etc., the disposition of this case is deemed to have exceeded and abused discretion.

B. In light of the following circumstances: (a) traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the result thereof is harsh; (b) the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving; (c) the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts; (d) the Plaintiff’s driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; and (e) there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition to be remarkably unreasonable.

arrow