(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017구단10921

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) 창원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017구단10921

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) as of October 28, 2017, on September 29, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA passenger car with a blood alcohol level of 0.118% under the influence of alcohol on the front of C on the roads located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 21, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is so harsh that the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood can be maintained by continuing the transportation of goods at the home-based company, the instant disposition is unlawful since it excessively deviates from and abused discretionary power, in light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential and that the Plaintiff has no record of driving alcohol.

B. In light of the following: (a) traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the result of the accident is harsh; (b) the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving; (c) the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be more severe than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative acts; (d) the degree of the Plaintiff’s driving constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; and (e) there are no special circumstances to deem the disposition of this case significantly unreasonable, the public interest is to secure traffic safety to be achieved through the instant disposition even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-도로교통법 시행규칙 제91조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.02.06 2018구단44

-창원지방법원 2018.02.06 2018구단51

-창원지방법원 2017.10.31 2017구단689

-창원지방법원 2017.10.31 2017구단658

-창원지방법원 2017.10.31 2017구단641