logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.01.15 2015구단14914
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. Class II driver's licenses issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2015 are revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 29, 198, the Plaintiff acquired Class 2 ordinary drivers’ licenses, Class 1 special (retainers) on March 4, 1993, Class 1 large drivers’ licenses on April 9, 1993, Class 2 small drivers’ licenses on July 17, 2014, respectively.

B. On July 23, 2015, at around 22:00, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol by 0.136% during blood alcohol while driving B rocketing car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and was found to have been under the influence of alcohol by police officers.

C. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s respective driver’s license under Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol as above.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 15, 2015, but was dismissed on October 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) revocation of the Plaintiff’s second-class driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle in the state of drinking is unlawful.

(2) The plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle in order to park in the vicinity of the driver's office, has the circumstances to take into account the situation. The plaintiff's vehicle driver's license is essential because the plaintiff is engaged in the door-to-door delivery business. The plaintiff is the most difficult to maintain his family's livelihood due to the revocation of the driver's license. The plaintiff is driving a model other than the driver's license in this case, and the driver's license standard prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is merely an internal treatment guidelines within the administrative agency. Thus, the legality of the disposition in this case should not be determined only based on the driver's license, but also in accordance with the contents

arrow