logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.06.05 2019구단416
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 November 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to have driven a B-car while under the influence of alcohol 0.087% of the blood alcohol concentration on two occasions on December 29, 2003 (0.136% of blood alcohol concentration) and on September 12, 2013 (0.146% of blood alcohol concentration), on October 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 6, 8, 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the Plaintiff’s occupation, reflectivity, and family’s livelihood, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.

Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow