(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.05.01 2015구단1963

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) 서울행정법원 2015.05.01 2015구단1963

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 January 18, 2015, at around 09:08, the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.059%, and was found to have been exposed to the police’s drinking control on the front of the 254 Electronic Islands, Guri-si, Gyeongsi-si.

B. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license of the second-class ordinary vehicle driving license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (the date of revocation; February 28, 2015; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she was suffering from the Plaintiff’s 01:00 square meters of Jan. 10, 2015 (the clerical error in January 17, 2015) after he/she went back to the house and returned home at around 01:00.

The plaintiff thought that the plaintiff completely broken the drinking, and was found to have been aware of the drinking control as above while driving the above car. The plaintiff was presumed to have intentionally driven without the awareness of being under the influence of alcohol, not to have done so, but to have caused the trouble of the drinking measuring instrument. In addition, considering the fact that the plaintiff needs a driver's license to work and maintain his livelihood as a member of the business, and that the plaintiff was controlled on the following A.M. due to the previous drinking, it cannot be said that the disposition in this case is less unfavorable than the public interest that the defendant intends to achieve, and thus, it is illegal and unjust.

B. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 3-1, 2, and 5 through 9, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license on August 1, 2006 and was under the influence of alcohol 0.220% of the blood alcohol concentration around July 12, 2008.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.06.18 2014구단10281

-광주지방법원 2015.05.21 2014구단758

-서울행정법원 2015.06.17 2015구단4528

-서울행정법원 2016.11.30 2016구단25348

-광주지방법원 2015.06.18 2015구단229