logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.03.19 2014누23185
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On July 17, 2014, the key issue of the instant case: (a) the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven Bchip vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.185% under the influence of alcohol level on June 3, 2014.”

The key issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case was an abuse of discretion.

B. The court of first instance held that “In the case of the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of sound driving, the public interest purpose to achieve the disposition in this case cannot be deemed to be less easily than the disadvantage of the plaintiff to be suffered due to the revocation, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, and the general preventive aspect to prevent it should be emphasized, and the Plaintiff does not seem to have any inevitable circumstance to drive the instant vehicle in the state of drinking. At the time of detection, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of detection exceeds 0.1%, which is the basic value of the disposition to revoke the driver’s license, and the Plaintiff may again acquire the driver’s license after the lapse of the disqualified period under Article 82(2) of the Road Traffic Act even if the driver’s license was revoked, and thus, the disposition in this case is legitimate.”

2. The judgment of this court and the plaintiff cited in the judgment of the court of first instance have been engaged in exemplary driving for 19 years and 2 months until it is discovered as a drinking driving of this case, and the driver's license is required to perform his duties such as commuting to work and repair of disability at work and work site, and the driver's license was requested to a vicarious driving company, but he was requested to do so, but he was forced to drive in drinking conditions only when he reached the time, and he was forced to do so.

arrow