본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 2019.01.24 2018구단1551

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 6, 2018, the Plaintiff holding a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license was under the influence of 0.133 percent of blood alcohol level on the front side of Flusium B, and was under the influence of 0.26 percent of alcohol level, and was under the control of police officers.

B. On June 21, 2018, the Defendant notified the revocation of the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul's 1 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around June 6, 2018, the punishment imposed on the Plaintiff as of June 21:00 and the punishment imposed on the Plaintiff did not cross the substitute driver as he did not walked after completing the drinking place; and (b) he inevitably driven by preventing the pressure of the manualing vehicle from running on the wind, and actively cooperate with the investigation; (c) he actively cooperates with the investigation; (d) he is engaged in the selective distribution from the rain water, if his driver’s license is revoked, it is practically impossible to maintain his livelihood; (e) he suffers from a fire, but he suffers from two degrees of image on the bridge, and thus, even if his mother has recently been used as a cerebrovascular disease, the disposition of this case constitutes an abuse of discretion, and thus, the disposition of this case constitutes an abuse of discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1 whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the degree of infringement of public interest by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all relevant circumstances.