logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.15 2016구단2773
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 26, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (license number: C) as of August 7, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car (license number: C) on the ground that he/she had driven the Plaintiff’s automobile in front of the YY900 on the YY on the street located in the front of the members of Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's argument is that the plaintiff's driver's license is essential for the plaintiff's direct supply and receiving money from his/her workplace while driving on his/her own as well as from 80 to 100 meters away from the rest in his/her workplace before the day immediately preceding the case. Since the plaintiff obtained a driver's license, he/she was driving without a drinking or personal traffic accident in addition to the 18-year previous disposition of suspension since he/she acquired the driver's license. When he/she manufactures and engages in wholesale business in a place of business located within the Corporation and directly supplies and receiving money from his/her workplace, the plaintiff's driver's license is required for commuting and receiving money from his/her workplace. Considering the economic situation where it is difficult for the plaintiff to employ other employees due to considerable debts, and the situation where it is difficult for the plaintiff to support his/her workplace and her wife and 2 South Korea, the disposition of this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff excessively abused discretion.

B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the suspicion of its consequences, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized.

arrow