(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.01 2015구단30900

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 2015.07.01 2015구단30900

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 July 25, 2001, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.112%, and was found to have each power discovered while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.242% on September 17, 2006. On October 14, 201, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.069% on the roads of Goyang-gu C in Goyang-gu, 201, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.0% on October 14, 201.

B. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving. As of December 30, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for Class I large, Class I ordinary, and Class II small vehicle driving (license number: E).

C. During the instant lawsuit, the Defendant revoked ex officio the Plaintiff’s Class II driver’s license of small automobiles among the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul Nos. 1-1 to 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was made that the instant disposition was made in accordance with the pulmonary test result without requiring the Plaintiff to measure blood collection from the police officer at the time the Plaintiff was found to have failed to obtain the Plaintiff’s notification three times of drinking driving. The instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant’s disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, in view of various circumstances, including: (a) the Plaintiff’s procedural defect in the process that the Plaintiff was not informed of the pertinent information from the enforcement officer; (b) the Plaintiff’s driving was the only means of living with the relationship that the Plaintiff is supporting his/her wife and his/her spouse; and (c) upon the revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff was at the disadvantage of not being given a business number for obtaining a new license

B. We examine whether the decision 1 procedure defects in this case, together with the evidence Nos. 6 to 8.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.08.26 2015구단31439

-수원지방법원 2016.01.27 2015구단3410

-서울행정법원 2020.02.05 2019구단71977

-제주지방법원 2019.05.15 2018구합6052