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 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven a B car at around 300 meters in the front of the Jinhae-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 28, 2009 (0.08% of blood alcohol concentration) and twice of the drinking 1/5 (071% of blood alcohol concentration) on November 5, 2014 (0.071%) while under the influence of alcohol 0.082% of blood alcohol concentration at around 23:25, November 23, 2018.” (hereinafter “instant disposition to revoke the instant disposition”).
B. On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on January 22, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 8 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a simple drinking driver who does not cause the Plaintiff’s assertion, and his family’s livelihood, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power, and thus ought to be revoked.
B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where the driver’s license in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times and does not confer discretion on whether to revoke the driver’s license.
Therefore, as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a drinking motor vehicle more than three times, the Defendant must take a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and there is no discretion to take any other measure. Therefore, there is no room for the instant disposition to be an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.