logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.04.15 2014구단32459
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 26, 2014, at around 22:30, the Plaintiff driven a benz car on the front side of the Kuwon Line Middle School, which is located in the Sejong East-dong, under the influence of alcohol by 0.163% of alcohol level.

B. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class and second-class ordinary vehicle driver’s license (license number: C) as of January 1, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of various circumstances, including the fact that it is necessary to obtain a driver’s license because it should directly supervise the construction site of the entire country while operating D Co., Ltd. and complete the construction work within the completion date, and that the Plaintiff reflects the driving under the influence of alcohol.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Even if the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary action, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where the driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest should be emphasized to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative action, the ordinary preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage suffered by the party

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1048, Mar. 27, 1998; 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the foregoing.

arrow