자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. Around January 21, 2017, the Plaintiff holding a Class I driver’s license for large vehicles was under the influence of alcohol level 0.065% in blood alcohol level at the lower end of U.S. U.S. P., Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, and controlled police officials while driving B K7 automobiles under the influence of alcohol level 0.065%.
B. On December 22, 2017, the Defendant notified the revocation of the above driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on April 17, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an illegal disposition that violates the principle of proportionality under the Administrative Law and the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction, in consideration of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is in charge of product shipment and delivery as a personnel in charge of SP shipment; and (b) the driver’s license is absolutely required; (c) if the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to maintain the livelihood of two children supported by the Plaintiff married as a divorce, and (d) the Plaintiff is against the truth.
B. (1) The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the provisions of Article 93(1)2 of the same Act not less than twice shall revoke the driver’s license in the case of a person who once again drives under the influence of alcohol and constitutes a ground for suspension of the driver’s license.
(2) The above provision of the Road Traffic Act can be justified for the legislative purpose of protecting the lives, bodies, and property of the people and ensuring the safety of road traffic. In the case of drivers who have violated the prohibition provisions on driving not less than three times in the state, it can be deemed that there is a substantial lack of responsibility for compliance with traffic regulations, safety awareness as traffic participants, etc.