(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.24 2018구단3480

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 2018.10.24 2018구단3480

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 June 12, 1995, the Plaintiff obtained a Class II ordinary driver’s license (B) on January 31, 2006, and Class I driver’s license on April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a Class II ordinary driver’s license on April 16, 2018; (b) obtained a Class I driver’s license on April 16, 2018; (c) obtained a 0.061% alcohol level (hereinafter “first driver’s license”) under the influence of alcohol level from the Dacheon-si apartment parking lot to the private distance at the entrance of the same city at the same time; and (d) obtained the first driver’s license for more than 10 points and was subject to the first driver’s license for more than 0 points and was subject to the disposition of revocation for 10 years; and (c) obtained the mark points for more than 0.065% under the influence of alcohol level on April 22, 2018.

B. On May 14, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license for driving motor vehicles as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff exceeds the penalty points.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 16, 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 each drinking driving of the instant case, and the plaintiff's use of public transportation to work at the work site is difficult at least three hours and at least two hours. Therefore, in light of the fact that the driver's license is essential for maintaining livelihood, the plaintiff actively cooperates with an investigation agency in relation to each driving of the instant case, and reflects the fact that the plaintiff bears living expenses and household debts, etc., the disposition of the instant case is in violation of discretionary authority and abuse.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제2항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.01.23 2018구단4285

-수원지방법원 2020.01.15 2019구단4145

-수원지방법원 2019.02.20 2018구단4827

-수원지방법원 2019.03.20 2018구단4704