logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.01.27 2020구단9634
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 September 7, 2020, at around 21:51, the Plaintiff driven a D-high-water vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.039% from around 500 meters to the front road of Silung-si, Silung-si, B from September 7, 2020.

B. On the other hand, on July 26, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending the driver’s license on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content 0.062%.

(c)

On September 19, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on September 19, 2020, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a history of driving alcohol again (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on December 8, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is short of the driving distance of alcohol, the alcohol level does not exceed 0.1%, the personal and physical damage caused by the driving of alcohol did not occur, the Plaintiff used the driving of a usual agency, and is currently against and again not driving of alcohol.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s home’s living is difficult to terminate if the driver’s license is revoked when considering the Plaintiff’s work characteristics, etc., the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked, since it constitutes an unlawful act of deviating from and abusing discretionary power, which is too harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination of the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 93(1)2 of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda (Law No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant legal provision”) re-enters a person who drives drinking after June 30, 201.

arrow