logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.11.07 2014구단1012
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 May 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on June 7, 2014 on the ground that “Asan City, B, around April 13, 2014, driving D vehicles on the street in front of the Asan City, in the state of alcohol concentration in an unclaimed state, but failed to comply with the police officer’s demand for alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds.”

B. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 5 million on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon District Court’s support.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of drinking around 23:00.

However, it is not a refusal to take a drinking test without justifiable reasons after receiving a drinking test request from a police officer dispatched after being controlled in front of the C District.

The Plaintiff her mother directly driven his own car and stopped outside the C Zone, and then explained the situation of drinking and requested assistance. The police officers, on the sole ground that the Plaintiff’s request for drinking without warning, are merely an inevitable and inevitable reason that the Plaintiff is drinking without drinking. The Plaintiff’s request is rejected.

The instant disposition is unlawful since it is deemed that the Plaintiff has a duty to comply with the request for measurement of illegal drinking so that it is unreasonable to enforce it.

(b) The facts recognized in the judgment of the relevant criminal case even though they are not detained in the original civil or administrative litigation, are recognized in the relevant criminal case unless there are special circumstances.

arrow