logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.23 2014구단1110
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 21, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired the Class 1 ordinary car driving license (license number B) and Class 1 large automobile driving license (license number B) on March 19, 1987, respectively.

B. At around 23:00 on January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff driven an E-si under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.151% at a section of approximately 150 meters from the street in front to the Plaintiff’s house located in the same household, namely, in the area of approximately 150 meters. The Plaintiff was discovered to the police.

C. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s respective drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on February 26, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014.

On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but received the dismissal ruling on May 20, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff is an individual taxi driver, and when his/her driver’s license is revoked, his/her license for private taxi transport business and his/her qualification for taxi driving is revoked.

(2) The Plaintiff currently maintains a family’s livelihood because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to cover the hospital expenses, loan interest, living expenses, etc. of the wife with the income generated from private taxi driving.

(3) Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and is unlawful by abusing the scope of discretion.

B. (1) Determination is based on the fact that even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, today’s motor vehicle is a mass means of transportation, and accordingly, a large amount of motor vehicle driver’s license is issued, and the trend and result of the increase of traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving are frequently involved, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving.

arrow