logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.06.29 2016구단6033
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. The Plaintiff acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license on August 22, 1998. However, on July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff was revoked the driver’s license on August 20, 2013 by failing to comply with a traffic control official’s demand for a alcohol test while driving a vehicle B on July 8, 2013.

B. On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, and around 21:45 on September 24, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.105% of blood alcohol, the Plaintiff driven a Category 355 U-Nam apartment 101, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Cpo-ro 355 U-Nam apartment 101, and driven a two-lane, one of the two-lanes in front of the civil defense education office, from the boundary of the tin basin, at the civil defense education office, from the front city, neglected to stop in the front city, led the back part of the D-class cruise passenger’s cruise in front city, and caused the back part of the D-class cruise passenger’s cruise in front and the back part of the 4-day passenger’s vehicle to be driven by the other party.

C. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving; and (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (the date of revocation; January 13, 2016; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 16, 2016.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion falls short of the amount of drinking alcohol and drives it in normal conditions after a considerable time after drinking.

arrow