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 December 16, 2019, at around 02:55, the Plaintiff driven a B-car with approximately KRW 1 km from D Elementary School located in the Yangu, Gyeonggi City, to the front road of the Yandong-gu, Gyeonggi-si, the Gyeonggi-si, the size of which was under the influence of alcohol by 0.207%.
B. On December 28, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license for Class I ordinary, Class II ordinary, and Class II motor vehicles (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. On January 28, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 3, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, 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 had been driving without any traffic accident or force of drunk driving for about 28 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the driving distance is relatively short of 20 meters, active cooperation with respect to the detection, the possibility of criticism and danger are significantly low, and the Plaintiff’s work is in the logistics center as a member of the company. Considering that the Plaintiff’s work is essential due to the nature of the Plaintiff’s work, and that the Plaintiff’s work is supporting both mother-child and two spouse and two children, the instant disposition should be revoked since it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, it should be revoked.
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, or whether it constitutes a violation of public interest by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.