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 March 29, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of driver’s license revocation on the same day on the ground that he/she was under the influence of alcohol 0.141%, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.091% on July 31, 2012 on the ground that he/she was under the influence of alcohol.
B. On February 21, 2019, at around 03:12, the Plaintiff driven a f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-b
(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”).
At the time of the crackdown on drinking driving of this case, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was measured by 0.093%.
On March 30, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for Class 1 large vehicles, Class 1 large vehicles, Class 1 large vehicles, and Class 1 large vehicles, pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “not less than three times drinking driving or drinking of alcohol”
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(e) On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 27, 2019. 【Ground for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute as to the instant disposition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 50, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (if there is a serial number, each statement including the number, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is relatively short of the distance of 2 km from which the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol.
If the plaintiff becomes a drink, he/she has used the ever designated driver's company.
The plaintiff made a confession of all the facts of the offense, and made it difficult for the plaintiff to not drive under the influence of alcohol twice.
The plaintiff entered the fire-fighting department with the qualification of automobile maintenance and practical experience, the driver needs to drive due to the characteristics of the work, and there are parents, their spouses and children who should support.
The plaintiff was awarded a certificate of merit in the course of service.