(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019구단839

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019구단839

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 Nov. 4, 199, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on Nov. 4, 199. On Nov. 29, 2018, around 21:45, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident, i.e., the Plaintiff, under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.16% in one lane among the two-lanes, while under the influence of alcohol level, while driving a Fspon vehicle at a one-lane in the same direction while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.16% from the two-lanes (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”). On Nov. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff neglected the Plaintiff’s duty of front alcohol level, and led the Plaintiff to a traffic accident, such as a trend of light alcohol level in need of approximately three weeks in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and a trend of injury.

B. On December 21, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving immediately before driving under the influence of alcohol in this case. The possibility and risk of criticism for the driving under the influence of alcohol in this case were significantly low, and the plaintiff has been exemplary driving since 1999. The plaintiff, as an I company member, visited the field as an I company, conducted an on-site inspection on the average of 22 days a month in charge of inspecting elevators, saving human lives, and handling broken-outs, and seven days of which are required to work as a waiting agent for 24 hours, so the driver's license is essential, and the plaintiff actively cooperate with the investigation agency in relation to the driving under the influence of alcohol in this case.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018구단3435

-수원지방법원 2019.05.29 2019구단1221

-수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단3428

-수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2019구단549

-수원지방법원 2019.07.17 2019구단1528