logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.17 2019구단100549
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;

가. 원고는 2018. 12. 21. 02:20경 안산시 단원구 B빌딩 사거리 도로에서 술을 마신 상태로 C 그랜져 승용차를 운전하다가 차량정지신호에 대기하면서 잠들어 있던 중 112 신고를 접수하고 출동한 안산단원경찰서 고잔파출소 소속 경찰로부터 3회에 걸쳐 약 25분간 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았으나, 음주측정기 불대를 입에 물고 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 그 측정을 거부하였다

(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)

On March 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to measure alcohol in this case, under Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act, to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary trade) as of March 26, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 16, 2019.

On March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of drinking level) with respect to the refusal of measurement of drinking alcohol in the instant case by the Suwon District Court Branch No. 2019 High Court Decision No. 201898, and the said summary order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff put the breath in the measuring instrument according to the police officer's request for a alcohol measurement, but the numerical value is nothing more than that of the breath, and the substitute driver's movement to the plaintiff's home, which led to the plaintiff's driving without any choice, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential to carry out his business and maintain his livelihood, and the plaintiff reflects the plaintiff's fault in depth, the disposition of this case is excessively harsh to the plaintiff and abused discretion.

arrow