logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단3053
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 January 27, 1998, the Plaintiff obtained a bicycle driver’s license for Class 2 motor vehicles, and a Class 1 ordinary vehicle driver’s license (B) on October 4, 2006, and on April 16, 2018, around 22:29, the Plaintiff driven, under the influence of alcohol at least 0.131% of the blood alcohol level in front of the F Real Estate, while under the influence of alcohol at least 50 meters (hereinafter “breathing”).

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; and (b) revoked the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff used a usual driving, and the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the pertinent drunk driving, and the Plaintiff, as a person in charge of the business of Sethyl Korea, has to move approximately 100 km a day average to visit the company every day, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential; the Plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects to the investigation agency regarding the pertinent drunk driving; the Plaintiff must support his spouse and children; and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay household debts, and is in an economic difficult way. In light of the above, the instant disposition is an error of deviation from discretion and abuse.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is based on the degree of infringement of public interest and its disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.

arrow