자동차운전면허 취소처분 취소
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 August 8, 2017, at around 02:39, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing vehicles while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.143% at the front of the Korean Farming Cooperative at the Hanm Asbestos Co., Ltd. 64-1.
B. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on November 29, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that there was no personal and material damage caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged drunk driving, that the driver’s license is necessary for the performance of occupation and the maintenance of livelihood, and that the disposition of this case is in depth and is in violation of the law of abuse of discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.
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, there is no reasonable ground to view that the above disposition standard conforms to subparagraph 2 of the revocation criteria in itself does not coincide with the Constitution or laws, and there is a significant degree of blood alcohol level of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level of 0.143%, the Plaintiff does not seem to have any inevitable circumstance that makes it inevitable for the Plaintiff to drive under the influence of alcohol, and the administrative agency cannot be deemed to have necessarily mitigated the disposition due to the necessity of a driver’s license for the performance of occupation and the maintenance of livelihood of his family members, etc., even if considering sufficiently various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s personal disadvantage due to the instant disposition exceeds
Therefore, the instant disposition was taken within the scope of discretion.