(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.19 2015구단718

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 2015.06.19 2015구단718

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 January 5, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired and driven a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and caused the injury and physical damage to the driver on board the damaged vehicle, such as catitis, which requires three weeks’ medical treatment, by driving a three-day driver’s license at a point 32.4 km from the 32.4 km on the Haak-Yan Highway, while driving a three-lane under the influence of alcohol level of 0.071% at the 0.30% alcohol level on November 1, 2014.

B. Accordingly, on January 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident while driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on January 6, 2015, but was dismissed on February 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful because it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s occupational license is urgently required and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked, taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s water is not drafted as water before measuring, but has to be placed at 1 to 20,000 parts of the water at hand; (b) the Plaintiff had to be placed at all times more than 20 minutes of the water; and (c) the Plaintiff’s license was measured at a few minutes of the water, and thus, it is difficult to live.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6 and 10 No. 6 and 10, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an error in the process of measuring drinking alcohol in this case is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff had been drinking at least 20 minutes after drinking control was conducted with respect to the Plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff had been drafted as water and conducted a drinking test due to respiratory. 2) Today, the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was an error in the process of measuring drinking alcohol is rapidly increasing and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.06.10 2016구단6676

-대전지방법원 2017.12.19 2017구단100033

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.03.14 2012노4353

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.14 2018구합3405

-창원지방법원 2016.03.29 2015구단913