logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.02 2015구단12512
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 March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 07:10% of the blood alcohol concentration, was driving a B-to-p motor vehicle from the 22th to the 24th complex of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu C apartment complex, and was parked on the right side. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to take necessary measures even though the repair cost for the said 4,164,000 won was destroyed and damaged.

B. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary driving on May 19, 2015 by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s marks 100 points due to drinking driving, 10 points due to breach of safety driving duty, and 15 points due to traffic accident that caused physical damage, and the accumulated points due to escape are at least 121 points, which are the criteria for cancelling the accumulated points for one year.

C. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have any proposed traffic accident since the acquisition of the driver’s license in 2007, the blood alcohol concentration of the instant case is minor, the Plaintiff’s license is necessary for livelihood since the Plaintiff worked in a pharmaceutical company’s business team, and the Plaintiff is in profoundly against this case, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing its discretion.

(2) When the commissioner of a district police agency intends to cancel a driver's license or suspend the validity of a driver's license pursuant to paragraph (1) of this Article.

arrow