logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.29 2018구합2730
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 March 25, 2005, the Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.113% alcohol level, but the driver’s license was revoked. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.073% of blood alcohol level, had the record of suspending the driver’s license, but again driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.086% on June 24, 2018.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) against the Plaintiff on the date stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal within a legitimate period, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause damage, the inevitable driving of a legal office officer, the circumstances and motive of drinking driving, drinking level, volunteer service activities, experience of living difficulties, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it was an abuse of discretion.

B. According to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license in a case where a person who has violated the prohibition on drinking at least twice the driver's license again drives the vehicle and constitutes a ground for the suspension of the driver's license. As seen earlier, the defendant who is the commissioner of the Local Police Agency must revoke the driver's license without any discretion to the defendant, and there is no discretion to decide whether to revoke the driver's license.

Therefore, contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

arrow