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 January 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff was driven under the influence of alcohol on November 13, 2014 and was given 100 points when he was under the influence of alcohol at 0.060%, and around December 23:40, 2014, when driving a bow truck under the influence of alcohol at 0.075% of the blood alcohol concentration at 0.075% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 13, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, whole purport of oral argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s last detection of the assertion, the pulmonary measuring alcohol level is a low figure of 0.075%, and the Plaintiff was aware of and driven in normal conditions after a considerable time after drinking, the fact that the Plaintiff has good driving experience, the Plaintiff should support his family while maintaining his livelihood due to driving, and in light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for his livelihood when he was employed as a visiting establishment and A/S engineer, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was excessively harsh and excessively harsh and thus, deviates from or abused discretionary power.
B. In the modern society where a motor vehicle becomes a public and universal means of transportation, the increase of traffic accidents and the harm and injury caused by drinking driving must be regulated, and the necessity for public interest to prevent this should be emphasized. Therefore, the revocation of driving licenses on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the license is revoked, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act.