logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019구단164
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 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “disposition of this case”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff, on April 21, 2004, driven a B truck under the influence of alcohol with approximately KRW 500 meters in the blood alcohol concentration of 0.068% on September 22, 2018, on the ground that “The Plaintiff, on April 21, 2004, driven a blood alcohol level of 0.106%) and twice the drinking alcohol level of October 28, 2012 (0.119% in blood alcohol level).”

B. On January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on January 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to drive the Plaintiff on a job, that was for parking without a high drinking level, and that reflectiveness and family life system, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretion.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow