(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.01 2018구단1162

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) 광주지방법원 2018.11.01 2018구단1162

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 14, 2018, at around 02:25, the Plaintiff holding a first-class driver’s license was subject to a drinking test on three occasions from a police official who was under the control of drinking driving at the time while operating a first-class driver’s license in front of the C(Nopp) located in the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City).

B. On April 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the claim was dismissed on May 15, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 14 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the day of the instant case: (a) talked about a part of the same industry’s friendship and living together with a person who is engaged in the same industry; (b) 3 meters of drinking, waiting for a fluor; and (c) fluoring for a fluor; and (d) fluor, the police officer called for a fighting with the report at the main place of the instant case demanded the Plaintiff to take a drinking test; (b) the police officer called for a fighting with the report at the fluor, demanded the Plaintiff to take a drinking test; (c) the Plaintiff did not cause the accident at the time of the instant case or did not suffer damage to others; (d) the Plaintiff was a self-employed in the operation of the city, and (e) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is absolutely necessary; and (e) the Plaintiff’s parent fluor had a rice farmer in the mouth; and (e) the Plaintiff’s fluor has to have an economic help in kneing kne.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.08 2015가합27601

-전주지방법원 2020.04.29 2020구단237

-수원지방법원 2018.12.19 2018구단4414

-수원지방법원 2020.02.05 2019구단4466

-수원지방법원 2018.07.18 2018구단1613