logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.08 2019구단3265
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 June 3, 2019, at around 22:55, the Plaintiff driven a B-to-pubed passenger vehicle with a 0.121% alcohol level while under the influence of alcohol, and 7 km from the front day of the mutual insular road in Pyeongtaek-si C to Pyeongtaek-si D.

B. On June 20, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 13, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not cause any personal or material injury due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the driver’s license has caused a traffic accident for about 11 years, has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol, and is currently against the present, and is not to drive under the influence of alcohol again. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff is in charge of customer hosting, promotion, and public relations while working as a business employee, and the Plaintiff is in the position of the Seoul Metropolitan area and local business trip to be unable to perform its duties if the license is revoked, and there is an abuse of discretionary authority due to the fact that the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, or not, is an individual by objectively examining the content of the offense as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances, etc., and thereby infringing the public interest.

arrow