(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.25 2020구단2978

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 2020.11.25 2020구단2978

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 March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a car at D Malaysia, while under the influence of alcohol concentration (0.102%) at the section of approximately 15 km from the roads near the department store in Busan-si B department store to the roads in the city of Sinung-si, Seoul-si. In addition, the Plaintiff driven a car at D Malaysia under the influence of alcohol concentration (0.102%).

B. On March 21, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking Class 1 and Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on June 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff used a usual driving, actively cooperates in the investigation and investigation of the instant case, is currently against the Plaintiff, and is expected not to drive a drinking again. Considering the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s occupation, if the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked, the Plaintiff’s livelihood is difficult if it is revoked, the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Determination 1 of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be determined by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to the degree of infringement on public interest by objectively examining the content and degree of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the degree of violation, the necessity of public interest to be achieved by the disposition, the disadvantage to be borne by the individual, and all relevant circumstances.

Even if the criteria for such a disciplinary measure are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it shall be an administrative agency.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2021.04.29 2021구단2776

-수원지방법원 2020.11.25 2020구단8860

-수원지방법원 2020.11.04 2020구단3285

-수원지방법원 2020.11.25 2020구단3384

-수원지방법원 2020.09.23 2020구단3087