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 18, 2018, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.085% at the front of Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.
B. On February 6, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of drunk driving at least three occasions.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on May 1, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is absolutely necessary for the plaintiff's driver's license to work as a member of the company in charge of material delivery work and maintain his/her livelihood, and the plaintiff's drinking driving power is old before 15 years, but the cancellation of a non-conditional driver's license is an error of law that deviates from or abused the discretion by excessively harshly
B. On July 13, 2002, the Plaintiff had a record of driving under the influence of alcohol (0.051%) on July 13, 2002, and driving under the influence of alcohol (0.164%) on August 13, 2002, and re-driving under the influence of alcohol.
Article 44 (1) and 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 44 (1) and Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act shall be prohibited from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and the Commissioner of a Local Police Agency shall revoke the driver's license if the person who has obtained the driver's license violates the latter part of Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice and if the person falls under the grounds for suspension of the driver's license again, in violation of paragraph (1) of the same Article, administrative
In addition, the above legal provision does not seem to violate the Constitution.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is a discretionary act is without merit, and otherwise, the instant disposition is illegal.