logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.26 2019구단1917
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 February 8, 2019, at around 22:05, the Plaintiff entered the road to drive and park a DaM525V car under the influence of alcohol. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was faced with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a normal course of driving on the road, resulting in an injury that requires approximately three-hour medical treatment. Police officers dispatched to the site thereafter, and the Plaintiff was found to have driven under the influence of alcohol, such as the Plaintiff’s incorrectness and smelling the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for a drinking test on three occasions.

B. On March 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to take a drinking test (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 8, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On the day of the case of the plaintiff's argument, considering the following facts: the plaintiff's vehicle driven a drinking with a prompt mind after hearing that the third child's heart was born in January 2019; the plaintiff did not have any history of causing traffic accidents or driving under the influence of alcohol for about 18 years since the plaintiff acquired the driver's license; the plaintiff's workplace cannot move to and from public transportation at a remote place; the distance between the plaintiff's residence and the work place is 100km and the plaintiff's vehicle is essential for driving; and the plaintiff's spouse and the child should be supported.

arrow