logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.27 2020구단4035
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 May 30, 2020, at around 01:20, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.065% of blood alcohol level, was driving at a 500-meter level from the front road of Gwangju City to the front road of Gwangju City, and was driving at a 500-meter level from the front road of Gwangju City, and was driving at the front road of Gwangju City, resulting in an injury to the driver of a damaged vehicle for about two weeks, who was in the atmosphere of signal at the front bank and was in need of treatment for about two weeks.

B. On June 9, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class I ordinary and Class II ordinary drivers' licenses against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had injured the Plaintiff due to a traffic accident while driving a drunk (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 25, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is minor; (b) the Plaintiff is currently working in a daily occupation while seeking a new workplace; (c) in order to seek a new workplace, the driver’s license is essential; and (d) the Plaintiff is required to provide support to the Plaintiff, his spouse, and two children; and (e) the instant disposition is revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.

B. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance,

arrow