(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.23 2019구단2774

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.23 2019구단2774

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 Nov. 24, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on Nov. 24, 2009, and caused a traffic accident that meets the freight vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at approximately 0.141% of the blood alcohol level from the front of Pyeongtaek-si apartment to the front road located in Pyeongtaek-si D on Apr. 25, 2019.

B. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 16, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving immediately before the driving of the instant drinking, and that the distance of the pertinent drinking driving was relatively short of about 400 meters, the possibility and risk of criticism for the drinking driving of the instant case, the plaintiff was driving on an exemplary basis without any particular accident for 11 years, and the plaintiff actively cooperate with and reflects with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving of the instant case, the plaintiff is in need of an occupational driver's license, such as on-site and on-site survey, while carrying out the duties of designing solar structures, and the plaintiff is in need of an economic help, the plaintiff must not have the parent thickness, support the spouse and two children aged 6 and 6 months, and bear living expenses and household debts, etc.

B. Whether the first punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2019구단549

-수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단3428

-수원지방법원 2019.08.28 2019구단2477

-수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018구단4094

-수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019구단990