209Gudan5438 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

○ ○

The Commissioner of Seoul Local Police Agency

November 12, 2009

November 26, 2009

1. The defendant's revocation disposition against the plaintiff on December 12, 2008 (class 1 common) is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition (the facts of recognition);

A. The Plaintiff, around December 8, 2008 - around 21: 20 - around 21:3, at the ○○ restaurant located in Incheon, driven the ○○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ dong in Seoul.

B. The YOO tried to drive the said vehicle on the Plaintiff’s preferential parking zone in front of the Plaintiff’s house, and had been parked by the winners of name. This was caused by yellow ○○’s warning, which led to a trial between yellow ○ and a person without name. Accordingly, the YO returned the yellow ○, an acting driver, to prevent the Plaintiff’s horse cost from spreading and spreading.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff parked the vehicle at the Plaintiff’s preferential parking zone to the extent of 2-3 meters. The influenites reported that the Plaintiff driven the vehicle at the time of vision or on a warning, and the Plaintiff was the police officer called up for on December 8, 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the vehicle at ○○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 00% on the ground that he driven the vehicle at ○○○-dong, 06% on the ground that he driven the vehicle at ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-dong, 00.

D. On December 12, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I common) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the circumstances leading up to the drinking driving and the fact that the driving is essential for livelihood, this case disposition is deemed to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and is deviating from and abusing the discretion.

B. Determination

The following facts are acknowledged, Gap's evidence 2, 5, and 6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 10, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1 to 3, Eul evidence 8-1 to 8-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings. In other words, the plaintiff is driving a substitute driver in Incheon to avoid drinking, and the plaintiff is driving a vehicle before his own house, so it seems that the plaintiff's high-priced driving was done so for parking within the resident parking zone. The driving distance is merely 2-3 meters, the plaintiff's driving distance, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 7-1 to 8-3, and Eul evidence 8-1 to 8-3, and the plaintiff has to deliver it directly to each customer, and the plaintiff has to do so for a long period of 10 days before the plaintiff's driver's license was revoked, and it seems that the plaintiff had been performing the above-mentioned voluntary activities.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges OOO -