(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.10 2016구단2766

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 2017.02.10 2016구단2766

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 August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver’s license (B), and was under influence on August 23:44, 2016, around 0.096% of blood alcohol level, the Plaintiff’s CM7 car volume owned by the Plaintiff was under influence on August 8, 2016, and was under influence on drinking.

B. Accordingly, on November 21, 2003, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on August 24, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the suspension of a driver’s license due to a drunk alcohol level of 0.08% on November 21, 200, and the revocation of a driver’s license due to a traffic accident causing human damage due to a drunk driving on July 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol driving in the instant case, and the control police officer did not demand a blood collection measurement to believe that the Plaintiff would be subject to the disposition of suspension of driver’s license as a result of the suspension of the Plaintiff’s license. However, if the Plaintiff notified that the driver’s license would be revoked three times, the Plaintiff demanded a blood collection measurement, and the lower amount of the driver’s license would have been left, and the driver’s license was revoked due to the nature of the Plaintiff’s business activities, and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood would be difficult upon the revocation of the driver’s license, the instant disposition was unlawful as it excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes an abuse of discretion.

B. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 6 and 8 of the Plaintiff’s 6 and 8, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff signed the blood collection without raising any objection to the blood alcohol concentration measured at the time of the pulmonary measurement, and thus, at the time of domestic affairs control police.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.07.09 2019구합434

-의정부지방법원 2019.04.23 2018구합3221

-의정부지방법원 2019.07.23 2019구합403

-수원지방법원 2020.04.03 2019구단4473

-전주지방법원 2020.04.08 2019구단1272