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 June 18, 2020, at around 22:51, the Plaintiff driven B SP car while under the influence of alcohol by 0.158%, and 2 km from the Cheongyang-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul to the roads adjacent to the Cheongsan-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul.
B. On July 3, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 28, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is relatively short of the distance from driving under the Plaintiff’s influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the driver’s license that caused a traffic accident for about 19 years or has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff is going against and is going not to drive under the influence of alcohol, and the Plaintiff is going to leave the construction site management office at least 25 days a month in which he is engaged in the construction site management office, and the Plaintiff must use a vehicle that occurs at 5 times in the new wall due to the characteristics of his duties, so if the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to perform his duties, and the Plaintiff must support his spouse and children, and send a living expense to his parents, and the loan should also be repaid. In light of the above, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff has excessively abused discretion.
B. The judgment-1 punitive administrative disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion by social norms.