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. The Plaintiff obtained a Class I ordinary driver’s license on October 23, 2007, but revoked the driver’s license on the day of driving under the influence of alcohol 0.169% on December 18, 201, and was punished as the day of driving under the influence of alcohol 0.169% on September 23, 201. On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license on March 23, 201, but was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license on the day of driving under the influence of alcohol 0.064% on November 24, 201.
B. On November 15, 2017, at around 02:13, the Plaintiff: (a) under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.218% (blood collection) on the alcohol level, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at KRW 0.218,00, the volume of the passenger car at KRW C in the level of 50 meters from the viewing parking lot located in the Suwon-si, Suwon-
B. On December 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of a drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph; and (b) revoked the driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph as of January 2, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 6, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul's 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion has been using a usual driving, which did not cause a traffic accident through the driving of the drinking in this case. The possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the drinking in this case is significantly low, the plaintiff must act as a member of the DMdipplate company with a business trip and a customer mainly, the plaintiff must go to the hospital, and the head of the child who has been used several times due to the inconvenience of the bridge and the blood pressure directly, so the driving of the motor vehicle is essential, and the plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigative agency and reflects it. In light of the above, the disposition in this case is in violation of law of deviation from discretion and abuse.
B. The judgment 1 punitive administrative disposition is discretionary in terms of social norms.