logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.06.28 2019구단908
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 December 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of December 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.152% on the road front of the Daegu Dong-gu Bel street on November 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is necessary for the Plaintiff to conduct a frequent business trip as a business manager of an overseas business division in the company; (b) the Plaintiff became a member of the Plaintiff, which became subject to the Plaintiff’s driver’s license; (c) the Plaintiff’s revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license due to the instant disposition is inevitable to leave; and (d) the Plaintiff’s livelihood is extremely difficult for the Plaintiff and his family members; (c) the Plaintiff was controlled by police officers in the course of moving and parking a vehicle parked by a substitute driver; (d) the Plaintiff was obstructed by the flow of traffic due to the instant drinking driving; and (e) there was no traffic accident or the occurrence of accident

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is compared with the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

arrow