(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.27 2017구단942

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) 대전지방법원 2018.02.27 2017구단942

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 July 13, 2017, at around 23:20, the Plaintiff driven a DNA fluoral vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.128% in the frontway in Asan City B.

B. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license on the ground of drinking driving.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on August 14, 2017, but the said claim was dismissed on September 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is excessively harsh to the plaintiff and abused discretion, considering the fact that the driver's license is essential for job performance and the maintenance of livelihood, that there is no history of drinking driving or traffic accident after obtaining a license, that there was no personal and material damage due to the drinking driving of this case, and that the plaintiff used the ordinary driving.

B. The instant disposition is based on Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, “the disposition of this case’s revocation of driver’s license”

2. In light of the following: (a) compliance with the individual criteria for revocation and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the above criteria are significantly unfair; (b) there is no inevitable circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff was forced to drive alcohol; and (c) the administrative agency cannot be necessarily mitigated from the disposition on the ground that the driver’s license is necessary for vocational performance and the maintenance of livelihood of his/her family members, etc.; and (d) even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is sufficiently considered, the Plaintiff’s personal disadvantage due to the instant disposition is greater than the need for public interest to be achieved thereby.

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate within the scope of discretion.

참조조문

-도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.05.31 2018구단93

-대전지방법원 2018.05.31 2017구단1297

-대전지방법원 2018.09.20 2018구단505

-대전지방법원 2018.11.29 2018구단101002

-대전지방법원 2018.12.20 2018구단871