(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.14 2019구단6244

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.14 2019구단6244

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the gas delivery business. On August 25, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class II ordinary), and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol on August 23, 2006, and the driver’s license was revoked on October 2, 2006. On November 2, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) on August 18, 2008, and acquired a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on December 21, 2014, while driving under the influence of alcohol of 0.062% on December 21, 2015.

B. On November 18, 2018, at around 03:05, the Plaintiff driven D cargo vehicles at a distance of about one meter from the road in front of the Cridge in his/her own city B while under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.166% (hereinafter “drinking”).

C. On December 28, 2018, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 22, 2019, but filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

4.9. Dismissal.

4. 18. Receiving the text of the decision.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 11, Evidence No. 1 to 11]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff church parking lot was equipped with a vehicle; (b) the number of the members who want to attend the new wall worship, who want to cut off the vehicle, and then did not find electric poles on the left side of the vehicle due to the left side of the vehicle; (c) the driving of approximately one meter and the accident did not have occurred; and (d) the police immediately did not have any damage; (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was self-feasible; (e) the Plaintiff’s speech disorder was not economically and physically difficult; and (e) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was necessary for gas transport services.

B. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the Road Traffic Act, March 27, 2018.

참조조문

-도로교통법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.05.25 2020구단211

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.14 2019구단6824

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.14 2019구단6237

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.25 2019구단24

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.11 2019구단5937