logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.27 2018구단1057
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 August 17, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary driver’s license (B), and additionally acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on January 20, 2006. On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending a driver’s license for 100 days (from September 19, 2017 to December 17, 2017) after driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level 0.064%.

B. On October 9, 2017, the period of the driver’s license suspension was around 19:49, the Plaintiff, from the Do near the 404 Sinsan-si, the Do adjacent to the 404 Sinsan-si public announcement of the Masan-si, the Plaintiff was regulating the volume of C in front of the 462 Sinsan-si road (hereinafter “instant driving”).

B. On November 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)19 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of driving during the suspension period of driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause a traffic accident through the instant driving; the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving is essential to make a night shift work as a newsch Rexroth production worker without any special technology; the Plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects the instant driving to an investigative agency; and the Plaintiff suffers economic difficulties due to family support, etc., there is an error of deviation from discretion and abuse of discretion.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is intended to be achieved by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.

arrow