logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.04 2019구단2439
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 January 20, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver's license (B), Class I ordinary driver's license on January 8, 1997, and around February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff caused a part of the Plaintiff's vehicle to the left-hand side of the victim's vehicle, which was driven by approximately 0.124% of blood alcohol concentration from the front of the part of the part of the e-mail 153-ro, E-mail, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, E-W, while driving under the influence of the driver's license on January 20, 1993.

B. On March 9, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, 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 used the Plaintiff’s ordinary driving, the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the instant drunk driving, the distance of drunk driving in this case is relatively short of 800 meters, the possibility of criticism and risk about the instant drunk driving, the Plaintiff was driving on an exemplary basis without any particular accident for 27 years, and the Plaintiff actively cooperated with and reflects with an investigative agency in relation to the instant drunk driving, and the Plaintiff was serving as the Vice Minister of Health and Safety Team in order to perform duties, such as attending a consultative body with frequent employees, safety education, and support at other sites.

arrow