(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018구단8089

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 2018.12.21 2018구단8089

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Around 00:43 on April 6, 2018, the Plaintiff driven the BMW car from the backway in the middle-gu Seoul metropolitan city to the above C apartment underground parking lot.

At the time, the plaintiff was controlled by the police officer who was dispatched to the other party borrower's report with respect to driving at the above underground parking lot, and was in the pulmon measurement by the drinking measuring instrument to 0.125% of alcohol concentration.

B. On May 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on July 3, 2018.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 15, the purport of whole pleadings

2. (i) The Plaintiff is legitimate in the instant disposition; (ii) the Plaintiff is not only defective in the methods and procedures for the measurement of alcohol; (iii) the Plaintiff was engaged in the breath test twice after the police officers dispatched at the time were forced to be faced with water, but failed to properly measure the breath test because they failed to function normally; and (iv) other police officers did not have to undergo the breath test more than three times in the course of the breath test on three occasions; and (v) the breathm used for the breath test at the time of the breath test (in principle, Article 38(2) of the Traffic Control Guidelines violates the provision that the breathm used for the breath test at the time of the breath test shall be used once per person); and (v) the first breath alcohol test at the time of the breath test (round 23:30 on April 6, 2018).

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.09.14 2018구단7468

-서울행정법원 2018.11.09 2018구단15987

-대구지방법원 2015.07.09 2014노3959

-서울동부지방법원 2014.03.20 2013노1300

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.21 2019고정2378