(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.02.26 2015구단3137

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 2016.02.26 2015구단3137

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 4, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired and driven Class 1 and Class 1 driver’s license (B), and was found to have been exposed to the crackdown on the road front of the additional Triopon in Echeon-si while driving C car at around 00:0 on November 4, 2015, under the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.102%.

B. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on November 10, 2015, but was dismissed on December 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's final alcohol level of 23:00 and the blood alcohol level of 30 to 90 minutes from the time of the plaintiff's final alcohol level increase to the highest level of alcohol. The plaintiff's final alcohol level of 1k away from the time of the plaintiff's blood alcohol level measurement at around 55 minutes after the 5-minute rate of blood alcohol level increase. Thus, the plaintiff's blood alcohol level at the time of the plaintiff's regulation cannot be concluded to be above 0.1% since the plaintiff's blood alcohol level at the time of the transportation business cannot be viewed to be more than 0.1% since the plaintiff's driver's license was revoked, it is very difficult for family members to maintain their livelihood and livelihood due to the plaintiff's lack of medical care. The plaintiff's vehicle driving volume was controlled while driving, but the plaintiff's final alcohol level of 1k away from the driver's license, and the disposition of this case constitutes an abuse of discretionary power to the plaintiff without the revocation of the driver's license.

(b) The purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: one set of evidence Nos. 5 and 6 shall be the same.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.05.27 2016구단173

-수원지방법원 2016.06.10 2016구단6591

-부산지방법원 2019.01.23 2018구단1774

-서울행정법원 2020.04.08 2020구단2526

-광주지방법원 2017.07.06 2017구단10190