자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 22, 2020, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A driver’s license was revoked pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that “A driver’s license was revoked on July 7, 2007, under the influence of alcohol by the Plaintiff (0.106% of blood alcohol level) at around 0.03% of alcohol level around December 6, 2019, while the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level 0.03% of alcohol level at around the top of the F convenience point in D located in the Hayangyangyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.”
B. On February 25, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on April 28, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the circumstances leading to the Plaintiff’s alleged driving, the blood alcohol content level is 0.03% merely, the fact that there is no damage, the mobility distance is short, and the fact that the occupational driver’s license is essential, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretion.
B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act stipulates that when a person who violates the same provision again violates the same provision, the driver’s license shall be inevitably revoked, there is no room for the disposition authority to decide whether to revoke the license.
Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate so long as the above drinking driving was recognized and the ground provision of this case does not violate the Constitution.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has discretion to cancel the plaintiff's driver's license is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.