(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.10 2019구단37

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.10 2019구단37

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 October 13, 2018, at around 03:15, the Plaintiff, while drinking alcohol, driven Bi 30 automobiles, driven 1 km from the 2-dynamics adjacent to the 2-dynamics adjacent to the 3rd and the 1km distance from the D in the 2nds adjacent to the 3nds of the 2nds of the 3nds of the 2nds of the 1sts of the 2018, and police officers dispatched upon receipt of a report on a drunk driving, are deemed to have driven under the influence of alcohol, such as the Plaintiff’s heavy snow, heavy snow, and heavy snow and breable, and accordingly, refused all the request without any particular reason.

B. On October 25, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff (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 December 11, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of noise level) and the said summary order was finalized on December 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) there was no personal or material damage caused by the Plaintiff’s drinking driving; (b) the Plaintiff is working in a plastic company as a technical or business position; (c) the Plaintiff is in the position to engage in business activities when the license is revoked; (d) the Plaintiff is in the position to discontinue his/her business; and (e) the Plaintiff is responsible for his/her family’s livelihood; and (e) the principal and interest of a large amount of housing mortgage loan should be repaid, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff

B. The proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph shall be sob as to determine.

참조조문

-도로교통법

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.07.05 2019구단846

-수원지방법원 2020.02.21 2019구단4237

-수원지방법원 2020.02.21 2019구단4152

-수원지방법원 2019.05.17 2019구단198

-수원지방법원 2020.10.16 2020구단3032