(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.02.11 2014구단16302

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 2015.02.11 2014구단16302

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 20, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the drinking control by police officers on the front side of the Seoul Western-gu B apartment road on September 20, 2014, the fact that the Defendant revoked the license of the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2014 does not conflict between the parties, or that the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 is recognized.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff works as a tree on the construction site, and the Plaintiff and his dependents are unable to work without a driver’s license, thereby preventing the livelihood of the Plaintiff and their dependents. 2) The Plaintiff was not notified of the revocation of the license if the Plaintiff refused to conduct the measurement, and the Plaintiff was not subject to the control of driving under influence of alcohol, but was in dispute with the police, and was illegally arrested even if the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for committing an offense in violation

B. In full view of the above evidence 1) 1 to 11 evidence and the purport of the entire argument, it is sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff was driven under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the police officer's demand for the measurement of alcohol due to considerable reasons to suspect it, despite the plaintiff's intentional refusal to comply with it. 2) In relation to the revocation of the driver's license to drive under the influence of alcohol at today's time, the plaintiff should bear more emphasis on the public interest to prevent the above danger than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The plaintiff refused the measurement on the ground that the driver was not exposed to the police officer even after driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of drinking, and there are several past records of the same kind, even if considering various circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, it is more necessary for the public interest to achieve it more than the personal disadvantage of the plaintiff due to the disposition of this case.

Therefore, there is no error in the defendant's disposition of this case from the same purport.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is eventually made.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.12.10 2014구단13624

-서울행정법원 2014.12.10 2014구단11369

-수원지방법원 2008.3.7.선고 2007구단4760 판결

-울산지방법원 2016.3.17.선고 2015구합1520 판결

-울산지방법원 2013.7.25.선고 2013구합561 판결