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 5, 2019, at around 09:35, the Plaintiff driven a Bknife car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.063% on the front road under the refluoral bridge located in the Geum-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.
(hereinafter referred to as “dacting driving of this case”). B.
On October 7, 2009, the Plaintiff was found to have been driven while under the influence of alcohol 0.138% by blood alcohol concentration.
C. On August 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person driving under the second or second influence of alcohol due to the instant drunk driving.
On August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on October 15, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including a number)
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was unable to feel a drink after drinking alcohol prior to the instant drunk driving, taking full view of the alcohol prior to the instant drunk driving, and driving the Plaintiff.
In this case, no damage has occurred due to the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff only moved 500 meters of volume, and actively cooperate in the investigation.
The plaintiff needs to obtain a driver's license for the test operation and the purchase of parts after the maintenance of the motor vehicle due to the maintenance of the motor vehicle, and needs to support the pregnant wife and his/her children, so the livelihood of the plaintiff and his/her family is threatened when the disposition in this case
Considering these circumstances, given that the Plaintiff’s private interest infringed on the public interest that would be achieved by the instant disposition is considerably large, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused discretion.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. Determination is made by the proviso of Article 93(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act as of January 2018.