logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018구단3565
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 14, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B), and around 03:02 on April 20, 2018, the Plaintiff driven a Category 10km car at approximately 10km (hereinafter “the instant drunk driving”) while under the influence of alcohol at a level of 207-10% (hereinafter “the instant drunk driving”).

B. On May 9, 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; and (b) revoked 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 July 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 12, 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 drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff was driving without accident for 12 years; the plaintiff was using a usual driving, and the plaintiff was unable to use public transportation due to the increase of public disorder since 2016. The plaintiff visited the construction site across the country as D members of the comprehensive construction company every day, and shall move about 10 km to 200 km every day to visit the government offices every day. Thus, the driving of the motor vehicle is essential; the plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff is liable to pay household debts; and the plaintiff's blood donation was made in violation of the discretionary authority and abuse.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the ground for the disposition.

arrow