(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.28 2015구단1919

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 2015.10.28 2015구단1919

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 January 21, 2002, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.065% and was discovered while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.110% on September 1, 2004, and was discovered while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.110% on September 1, 2004, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.057% on November 15, 2014 at the roads front of the Kusan-si post office located in the Kusan-si, U.S. P. M. car under the influence of 0.05% on alcohol level.

B. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license (license number: C) on December 26, 2014 by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① (a) a worker who was engaged in the measurement of drinking alcohol did not notify the Plaintiff of the principle of noise; (b) a procedural error was found in the procedure for the measurement of drinking alcohol at the driver’s seat, which was conducted after a certain period of time after drinking water was drinking; and (c) the Plaintiff was found to be unlawful in the disposition of this case; and (b) the Plaintiff was engaged in the duty of driving the drinking water in Aberland, but the license was revoked; (c) the Plaintiff was unable to engage in the work with the wind at which the license was revoked; and (d) the Plaintiff was living at the construction site and the driver’s license is essential due to the need for the public interest. The instant disposition is unlawful because it is excessively excessive that the Plaintiff suffered a disadvantage compared to the need for the public interest.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 8 of the judgment 1 procedural illegality, the plaintiff's consent to a traffic police officer's request for measurement at a drinking control place, and it is recognized that the plaintiff was in charge of working on the water before a drinking test is conducted, and the traffic police officer conducts a drinking test.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.04.20 2015누67856

-창원지방법원 2016.12.13 2016구단682

-서울행정법원 2016.07.11 2016구단7753

-수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2015구단2462

-수원지방법원 2015.12.11 2015구단2523