자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On May 2, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary). On May 18, 2004, the Plaintiff was found to have been under the influence of alcohol level 0.062%, while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.062%, and the driver’s license was revoked on November 4, 2008 due to not renewed the driver’s license, and on February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff acquired the driver’s license (class 1 large).
B. On January 18, 2020, at around 22:46, the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car at a distance of about 3 km from the Geum-dong to the roads in front of the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation located at the 3km-ro 4 from the Geum-dong at the time of Pakistan, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.06% of blood alcohol level (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).
C. On February 6, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drinking driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On February 19, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but filed it with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.
4. The dismissal was 14.
[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, Evidence No. 1 to 13]
2. In light of all circumstances such as the absolute need for a driver’s license in order to work before a subordinate company serves as U.S. source of public transportation, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.
However, according to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is the Defendant.
Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.