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 August 16, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) and a Class 1 driver’s license on April 21, 2009. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident leading to driving of CMW car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with approximately 0.163% of alcohol alcohol level from the area near the original railroad station in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the exit of 1 km during a while under the influence of alcohol level from 0.163% of alcohol level (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. On July 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; (b) issued a disposition revoking the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 21, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 02:15, the Plaintiff took a accelerator (accer:) under the consent of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant vehicle, and moved approximately one meter to the lock; (b) before that, the Plaintiff did not drive approximately 1 km from the transfer parking lot of the original station in the area of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si to the exit of the original station No. 1; (c) however, even though the Plaintiff was scheduled to drive the instant vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was only driving of the instant vehicle because it was difficult for the Plaintiff to drive the vehicle due to the lack of operation (hereinafter in this part, referred to as “driving distance assertion”); (d) the Plaintiff’s mistake recognized the Plaintiff’s mistake and contradictory to the truth; (d) the Plaintiff’s mistake constitutes a minor negligence; and (e) the Plaintiff does not directly or from time to time drive a vehicle as a fire fighter.