logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.10 2015구단30924
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. The Plaintiff, while driving a car on February 19, 2014, was given 30 points with a mark of 30 points due to a violation of the traffic of the expressway bus exclusive lanes and the multi-line exclusive lanes. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.07% of the blood alcohol concentration on September 25, 2014, while driving a car on the 5th day of the light village complex, was given a mark of 130 points with a mark of 10 points with a mark of 10 points for a year.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large vehicles, Class I ordinary vehicles, Class II ordinary vehicles (license number: C) on November 12, 2014 by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the accumulated points of the Plaintiff’s calculation of the penalty points for one year is at least 121 points, which are the criteria for revocation of the accumulated points of penalty points for one year as 130 points.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is running individual cargo transport business requires an occupational driver’s license; and (b) the Plaintiff’s income maintains his family’s livelihood; and (c) the violation of traffic regulations is insignificant, and the Plaintiff’s depth is against the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s driving experience, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, even if the Plaintiff considered various circumstances, the need for public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantages the Plaintiff would incur, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of deviation from or abuse of discretion in the instant disposition.

Today, the number of car driving licenses is rapidly increased and the traffic conditions are complicated.

arrow