자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary) as of March 28, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a blood alcohol level of 0.11% on his/her alcohol level (0.11% on March 28, 2004, 0.067% on June 19, 2007, and 0.102% on December 21, 2007) on March 17, 2017, on the road located at the window B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, on the ground that he/she constitutes a case where he/she drives a D high-priced car with a alcohol level of 0.06% on three or more occasions while under the influence of alcohol. < Amended by Act No. 14706, Mar. 28, 2017>
On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of 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 31, 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 fact that the driver’s license is essential to maintain the family’s livelihood by continuously driving the Plaintiff’s alleged truck, the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion because it is too harsh.
B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act falls under at least three times, and does not grant discretion as to whether to revoke the driver’s license. Therefore, the defendant must take a disposition to revoke the driver’s license in cases where the driver’s license falls under at least three times, and there is no discretion to take any other measure.
Therefore, the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff's driver's license on the ground that the Plaintiff's drinking driving falls under more than three times is not likely to be a deviation or abuse of discretion.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.