logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.07.09 2013구합2222
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. On September 2, 2013, at around 23:10, the Plaintiff: (a) was under the influence of alcohol, and was parked while driving a B vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with approximately 5 meters back from the Jeju CF route on the front of the CF route.

B. On September 2, 2013, the police officer, who was dispatched to the above site, demanded the Plaintiff to respond to a alcohol alcohol level test on September 2, 2013, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, but the Plaintiff refused to take a alcohol level test without justifiable grounds. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to take a second alcohol level test on the same day at the staff box of the Jeju Western Police Station, and the next 0:10 on the same day, but the Plaintiff refused to take a second alcohol level test without justifiable grounds.

C. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of December 24, 2013 pursuant to Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to measure alcohol.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 6, 7, 8, 13호증, 을 제1호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 처분의 적법 여부 원고의 주장 원고는 음주 후 대리운전기사를 불러 이 사건 차량을 운전하게 하였으나, 원고의 집 근처에 다다라 대리운전기사가 예정된 금액보다 더 많은 금액을 요구하며 길목을 막은 채 이 사건 차량을 세워뒀고, 때마침 길목을 통해 나오려던 차량이 경적을 울리며 재촉하자 어쩔 수 없이 원고가 이 사건 차량을 후진하기 위하여 운전한 것이었다.

In addition, taking into account various circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff needs to drive a motor vehicle for a vocational reason and is responsible for the livelihood of his family, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, deviates from the scope of discretion.

Attached hereto to the relevant statutes.

arrow