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 30, 2019, at around 05:46, the Plaintiff driven a 500-meter maximum amount of B car while under the influence of alcohol by 0.064%, and driving a 500-meter maximum amount of 00-meter maximum amount of car at the Won-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi-do.
B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending the driver’s license on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol level 0.075%.
C. On September 10, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a drunk driving twice or more (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.
On January 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 21, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff supports his family, the family form is not good, the Plaintiff’s occupation is absolutely necessary due to the characteristics of the occupation as an assistant volunteer, and the amended Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license for the two-time drinking driving, was enforced on June 25, 2019, and the Plaintiff conducted the instant drinking driving in a state where the Plaintiff was unable to properly understand the above provision, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and it is erroneous for the Plaintiff to abuse discretion.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who drives under the influence of alcohol once again drives under the influence of alcohol after June 30, 201 falls under the grounds for the suspension of the driver’s license, the commissioner of the competent local police agency is obliged to revoke the driver’