logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.11 2019구단2460
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 March 28, 2019, at around 04:17, the Plaintiff driven a B-hand vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.176%, and driven a 40km from the roads on the B-hand B-on-si B-on-dong B-on-si B-on-on-road c-on road.

B. On May 2, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on June 27, 2019.

[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 summary of the plaintiff's argument does not cause any personal or material damage due to the plaintiff's drinking driving, the plaintiff's acquisition of the driver's license did not cause a traffic accident for about 18 years or drive under the influence of alcohol for about 18 years, and the plaintiff is going to not drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the plaintiff is operating a dental house, and the plaintiff is operating a dental house at least 2 o's new wall that leaves the place where the si is in the situation where the performance of duties is impossible if the license is revoked due to the necessity of the vehicle for the purchase of food materials, and the principal and interest of the loan should also be repaid. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is revoked because the plaintiff abused discretion because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is objectively the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.

arrow