자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff driven while under the influence of alcohol 0.113%. On May 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol.
B. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission decided on June 24, 2014 that the revocation disposition of the above driver’s license was changed to the suspension disposition of the driver’s license for 110 days.
C. From June 15, 2014 to October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff, even during the suspension period of a driver’s license, was driving B Poter cargo vehicles owned by the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014, around 19:25, around the 33rd-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
On July 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I, II, and II) pursuant to Article 93(1)19 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on September 23, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff could not have engaged in his/her occupation during the suspension period of his/her driver's license, and caused son to drive on behalf of son. The plaintiff is likely to cause an accident in front of the restaurant in a narrow runway due to the lack of her driver's license, and thus, 10 meters of a narrow runway road. The plaintiff is absolutely necessary since her driver's license is supported by her wife and 2 undergraduate students, and the plaintiff's wife and her son are supported by her wife and her two undergraduate students. The plaintiff's wife are used in brain flachising and cerebrovassis, with heavy burden of registration fees for her hospital and her children, and her family members are faced with extreme difficult circumstances.