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 10, 2019, at around 00:35, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.081%, and was driving approximately 3.57 km from the roads near the U.S. East Eastdong Station in Gyeonggi-si to the roads in front of the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-si, and was driving at approximately 3.57 km from the roads in front of the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-do, and was driving in the same direction as the said roads, while driving in the direction of the D apartment in the direction of the D apartment, the Plaintiff is under the influence of neglecting the duty of Jeonju.
The following parts of the GDPR125A car driven by the victim E-driving due to the speed limit were inferred to the front part of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the victim suffered injury, such as chills, tensions, etc. that require approximately two weeks of treatment.
B. On January 10, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while driving 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 February 12, 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 17, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition should be determined by comparing and balancing the public and private interests of the punitive administrative disposition, the fact that the Plaintiff had been engaged in an accidentless driving for 23 years, the fact that he/she was actively engaged in the investigation agency, the fact that the degree of infringement of private interests caused by the cancellation of the driver’s license is excessive, the subsequent conference and reflects, and the Plaintiff is in office as the Head of Fbu General, and the Plaintiff is in need of mobility in light of the characteristics of duties by performing the construction structure design and safety diagnosis work. If the license is revoked, it is only impossible to perform his/her duties.