logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.08.19 2016구단13390
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 September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was given a 30-point penalty points as a median line with the center line. On February 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was given a 100-point penalty points as the Plaintiff was discovered while driving B cargo while being drunk with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.090%.

B. On March 10, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 2, class 2) pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total sum points of 130 points per year as above exceeds 121 points, which is the criteria for revoking the driver’s license.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 10 evidence, Eul 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the instant disposition is against the Plaintiff’s disadvantage rather than the public interest to be achieved due to the Plaintiff’s revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of carrying on a person who supplies food materials, and the Plaintiff is in an economic difficult situation; and (b) the Plaintiff’s act of causing a threat to the family’s livelihood.

B. (1) Determination is today’s mass means of transportation and accordingly, the necessity of public interest to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions as a large-scale driver’s license is issued. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s license is more general preventive aspects than the disadvantage of the parties to be incurred due to the revocation of the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act.

arrow