logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2014구단11101
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.114% at a 0.14% alcohol level on the GTX KN road located in Daegu Suwon-gu, on June 29, 2014.

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

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. In full view of the circumstances such as: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is responsible for business in C in charge of the Plaintiff’s business; (b) the distance of the Plaintiff driven at the time of the instant accident is less than 100 meters and there was no traffic accident or other damage due to drinking driving; and (c) there was no traffic accident or drinking power prior to the instant case, the instant disposition is deemed to be unlawful as it is against the law because the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff is too large compared to the public interest realized therefrom

B. In today’s determination, the need to strictly observe traffic regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver’s licenses is growing, and traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving is very great. Therefore, the revocation of driver’s licenses on the ground of drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party that would have been incurred due to the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007). It does not seem that there is any inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff could not avoid drinking driving at the time of regulating a drunk driving.

arrow