beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.09.27 2017구단566

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 10, 2017, at around 18:45, the Plaintiff was driven by a Darter while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.064% in front of the C cafeteria located in the Gamba-gun, the Plaintiff was driving the Darter in front of the C cafeteria, which was in the influence of alcohol level 0.064% on the front of the C cafeteria, and was going to the left after the turn to the left from the right edge of the C cafeteria, and was going to the left at the left edge of the said C cafeteria, and the Plaintiff was receiving the victim’s upper part of the victim’s driver’s son who was driving on the left side of the said C cafeteria, resulting in the death of March 22, 2

On April 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I, Class I, Class I, Class II, Class II, and Class II motor vehicles) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of May 23, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.064%, resulting in the death of the victim.

On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to maintain his family’s livelihood, the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused and abused discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood; (b) the Plaintiff agreed with the injured party; and (c) the Plaintiff had no record of driving

B. In today’s judgment, there are frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving is different from the case of general beneficial administrative act.