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 September 7, 2018, the Plaintiff driven Cdisane car while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.140% alcohol level on the frontway of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu Seoul.
B. On October 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of the Class 2 ordinary vehicle driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1%.
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 December 4, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 6 through 10, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.
1) The Plaintiff, along with D, tried to go home to a substitute driver after drinking alcohol with D, who is a business related person. However, the Plaintiff only driven a motor vehicle over a short distance of time due to D and D’s occurrence of paralysis and vision, which is inevitable to avoid its location. This is not subject to administrative sanctions as it constitutes an emergency evacuation. 2) Taking into account various circumstances, such as the distance driven by the Plaintiff is short and there is room for considering its motive, the instant disposition was excessively harsh and abused discretion.
B. 1) Sanction against a violation of the alleged administrative law, which is not subject to sanctions, is a sanction against the objective fact of the violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where it is impossible to cause any negligence to the violator, it may be imposed even if the violator does not have intention or negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003).