beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.06.18 2020구단126

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 17, 2019, at around 20:10, the Plaintiff driven C vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.075% in front of Hong-gun Hong-gun (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).

B. On September 27, 2019, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol even though he had past history of driving under the influence of alcohol.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 20, 2019.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol before driving the motor vehicle in this case.

[Retoxicing on May 9, 2014 (0.092% of blood alcohol level). 【A-based ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 5, Eul’s 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the drinking driving of this case interfered with traffic flow or did not cause any traffic accident, the distance of the Plaintiff’s driving and the distance of 500 meters exceeded, the Plaintiff actively cooperated in the investigation of drinking driving after the pertinent drinking driving, the Plaintiff used the ordinary driving, the Plaintiff is in charge of the transportation of materials and production management in Kim Factory, and there are family members who need to support, etc., the instant disposition is an abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly harsh to the Plaintiff.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, the commissioner of a district police agency is necessarily a driver in cases where a person discovered due to drinking or refusal to measure drinking again drives a motor vehicle and thus constitutes grounds for suspending the driver’s license