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 November 28, 2010, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.104%, while under the influence of alcohol 0.104%, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.13% on April 21, 2013.
B. After that, on November 11, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.043% of blood alcohol level, driven a B-ro car, and 200 meters from the shooting distance on the Gunn Elementary School located in the Mapo-si, Militarypo-si, Militarypo-si, Militarypo-si, Military-si, Military-si, Military-si, Military-si, Military-si, Military-si, Military-si.
C. On November 29, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving again under the influence of drinking alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 4, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that no personal or material damage has occurred due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, and the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving is relatively short, the Plaintiff is going against and going not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, and the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of maintaining and repairing a small-scale park located in the military. Since the Plaintiff’s driving is essential to load and move heavy tools and materials due to the nature of the business, when the driver’s license is revoked, it is impossible to perform his/her duties, and is in the position to terminate his/her business, and the Plaintiff is obliged to refund interest on the loans he/she borrowed, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.
B. The proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act are the same.