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 June 10, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.162% in front of Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon. On July 11, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the above alcohol driving.
B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on August 11, 2017 regarding the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 12, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff, when considering the fact that the plaintiff did not cause personal and material damage due to drinking driving, that the driver was involved in an accident for seven years since the driver's license was acquired, that the plaintiff was engaged in the work of UN medical devices and delivery, and that the driver's license is essential for the job performance and the maintenance of livelihood.
B. The instant disposition is based on Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, “the disposition of this case’s revocation of driver’s license”
2. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration level is considerably high; (b) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level does not seem to have any inevitable circumstance that makes it inevitable to drive the Plaintiff X-gu; and (c) the administrative agency cannot be deemed to have necessarily mitigated its disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary for vocational performance or the maintenance of livelihood of his family members, etc., even if considering sufficiently various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s personal disadvantage due to the instant disposition is greater than the public interest needs to be achieved by the said disposition.
Therefore, the instant disposition is within the scope of discretion.