logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.07 2018구단8379
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. (i) On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.089% on the roads in front of Guro-gu Seoul, and not only driven a B low-priced car at approximately 10 meters on the roads in front of Guro-gu Seoul, but also driven a U-turn while driving the said vehicle, and kid the central line.

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant issued the “instant disposition” that revoked the driver’s license (Class I common) based on Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total sum of 130 points per year (the 100 points of the penalty due to drinking driving) (the 30 points of the penalty due to the median line), which exceeds 121 points (the 121 point of the penalty due to drinking driving).

Applicant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition on June 19, 2018, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the petition for administrative appeal on July 17, 2018.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Evidence A, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 1 through 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused and abused discretion, considering the following as a whole: (i) the Plaintiff has no traffic accident or alcohol driving force for about fourteen (14) years; (ii) the substitute driver on the day of the instant case’s minor thought for the convenience of the substitute driver, which led to the instant case; and (iii) the fact that the driver’s license is required for the performance of duties and family life while engaging in the delivery business on the day of the instant case; and (iv) the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused and abused discretion.

According to Article 93(1)1, 19, and (2) of the Complemented Road Traffic Act, and Article 91(1)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, when operating beyond the breath level (the blood alcohol concentration is not less than 0.05% but less than 0.1%), the penalty points shall be given 100 points and the traffic classification violation (limited to the central line), respectively, and the penalty points shall be given not less than 121 points per year.

arrow