(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.16 2015구단51078

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) 인천지방법원 2016.08.16 2015구단51078

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 26, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license on January 26, 1989, and was under the influence of alcohol 00:24 October 29, 2015 and was under the influence of alcohol 0.075%, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.075%, and was under the control of the police in the front of Bupyeong-gu Incheon.

B. On June 6, 2006, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on November 17, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on two or more occasions by driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.087% and 0.067% of blood alcohol level of 0.067% on May 5, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on December 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 10 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) as a result of the respiratory measurement, the blood alcohol concentration of 0.075% was measured with a low level; (b) the control police officer should have been informed of the method of measurement through blood sampling; (c) there was a procedural error in the procedure without such procedure; and (d) the Plaintiff has been operating a repair business for more than 30 years; and (c) considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the Plaintiff’s vocational performance; and (d) the Plaintiff is faced with a situation in which it is difficult to maintain the family’s livelihood dependent on the Plaintiff’s import due to the instant disposition, and that the instant disposition is unlawful

B. (1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the above argument (1), the statement of evidence No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the control police officer notified the Plaintiff of the method of measurement based on blood after the pulmonary measurement, but did not request blood measurement.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제44조 제1항

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.07.19 2016구단503

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.01.29 2014고정1183

-대구지방법원 2017.02.10 2016구단11549

-수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2015구단2462

-수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018구단3909