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 April 9, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.078%, the Plaintiff driven a B-low-low-income vehicle while driving on the roads in front of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and caused the Plaintiff to shocked the car with the center line, and suffered an injury to the driver of the damaged vehicle and his/her passengers for about two weeks, respectively.
B. On July 2, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had injured the Plaintiff due to a traffic accident while driving a drunk (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 20, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 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 has caused a traffic accident for about 27 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, or has no record of driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the Plaintiff is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol again, against the present time. The Plaintiff’s disposition in this case shall be revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s member, as a member of the planning office, has a nationwide factory, a business branch, a local training institute, etc. from time to time, has to perform duties, and the average of 10-12 days per month has to perform external duties, and when the license is revoked, it is impossible to perform duties, and there has been a situation where the Plaintiff has to retire from office for 23 years, and that the Plaintiff has to support his spouse and two children.
B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is intended to be achieved by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.