(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2015구단2462

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 2015.11.25 2015구단2462

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 August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a 0.055% alcohol level on August 17, 2007. On October 25, 2008, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.059% on October 25, 2008. On April 22:14, 2015, the Plaintiff driven the B K5 vehicle level on the front of the Hanbridge, in the state of under the influence of alcohol level of 0.074% on the alcohol level.

B. On May 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving. As of May 18, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class and second-class ordinary car driving license (license number: C).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s blood test was demanded from the police officer to take the blood test with the last blood alcohol level of 0.074% 0.074% as a result of the Plaintiff’s pulmonary test. While the enforcement officer proposed that blood test had a higher level than the pulmonary test, he would be 100 days for the suspension of the license, and given up the blood test while receiving a prior notice of the suspension of the driver’s license, and was subject to a disposition to revoke the driver’s license unlike the end of the enforcement officer. The instant disposition was unlawful since the police officer’s erroneous notice of the enforcement officer lost the Plaintiff’s opportunity to measure blood, and it was unlawful that the Plaintiff’s trust on the notice of the suspension of the driver’s license by the enforcement officer was hindered.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s proof Nos. 1, 3, and 6, when the drinking alcohol level due to the Plaintiff’s respiratory measurement was measured at 0.074%, the controlling police officer notified the Plaintiff of the subject of the license suspension, and furthermore, the driver’s license was suspended.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.02.09 2016누71722

-서울행정법원 2015.06.12 2015구단54042

-수원지방법원 2016.06.01 2016구단6348

-부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017구단408

-수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2017구단1760