(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.05.09 2018구단56551

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) 서울행정법원 2018.05.09 2018구단56551

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 March 24, 2004, the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of drunk driving under the influence of alcohol by either 0.135% of blood alcohol level and 0.165% of blood alcohol level on May 11, 2015.

B. On December 20, 2017, at around 13:40 on December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.128%, driven a crodo sports cargo vehicle at the front side of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government while being under the influence of alcohol level of 0.128%.

C. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of the Class 2 ordinary vehicle driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1%.

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 April 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the Plaintiff’s circumstances and various circumstances, such as that the Plaintiff, who operates a stone construction business on the construction site, needs to commute to and from the workplace with the team members due to the nature of the Plaintiff’s work, making it difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his livelihood as it is due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to and abused discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms, or abused discretionary power, is the cause of the disposition, and objectively examines the content of the offense committed as the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances, and thereby, the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantage that an individual

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018.11.09 2018구단18962

-서울행정법원 2018.06.20 2018구단8644

-서울행정법원 2018.08.29 2018구단12520

-서울행정법원 2018.05.23 2018구단4918

-서울행정법원 2018.10.31 2018구단67315