(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.17 2018구단3091

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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.17 2018구단3091

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 February 27, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B), and around 01:00 on May 5, 2018, the Plaintiff driven a 200-meter 10m (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) from the street upper right line to the F in E, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.12% of blood alcohol level, at around 01:0, May 5, 2018.

B. On June 5, 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; (b) issued a disposition revoking 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 6, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff has used the driving by proxy on the day of the driving of this case. The plaintiff used the driving by proxy on the day of the driving of this case. However, the second driving for mobile parking was in the short range of driving distance and became directly driving. The possibility and risk of criticism about the driving of this case was significantly low, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the driving of this case is minor, and the plaintiff should move about 80-100 meters a day to visit a pharmacy and a hospital as a business employee of the pharmaceutical company, and the plaintiff must immediately have approximately 80-100 meters a day to visit a pharmacy and a hospital. Since it is necessary to maintain the livelihood of the driver's license, the plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigative agency about the driving of this case, and reflects the fact that the plaintiff bears the expenses of the parent's hospital that is the patient.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.05.29 2019구단2737

-광주지방법원 2018.04.12 2017구단2328

-수원지방법원 2018.01.24 2017구단2725

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2019구합397

-수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단3053