(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019구단4299

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 2020.02.12 2019구단4299

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A. On November 11, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on February 4, 2002, and was revoked the driver’s license on November 11, 2003 due to drinking (0.178% of blood alcohol level) and physical damage, and again acquired the Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on March 9, 2007 (B) on July 25, 2019, while he was under the influence of 0.194% of blood alcohol level from the vicinity of the Gu criminal basin to the road in the Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On August 21, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s 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 ruled dismissed on October 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 14, 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 pertinent drinking, and the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the pertinent drinking driving, the distance of the pertinent drinking driving is relatively short of about 4km, the possibility and risk of criticism for the pertinent drinking driving, the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects with the investigative agency regarding the pertinent drinking driving, the plaintiff is in charge of construction equipment and supply and education at the self-employed company called the "E", which is called the "E" with the plaintiff's father, and the driver's license is essential as a building with heavy equipment, and the plaintiff has to have the economic help with the parent, and is economically difficult, such as raising living expenses.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019구단4299

-수원지방법원 2019.06.26 2019구단1870

-수원지방법원 2019.07.24 2019구단1887

-수원지방법원 2019.09.25 2019구단2620

-수원지방법원 2020.01.15 2019구단3999