자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around 00:10 on May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was given penalty points of 110 points, as he/she was under the influence of drinking (0.112% of blood alcohol concentration) within the jurisdiction of the Busan Western Police Station.
(A) On July 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke a driver’s license to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, and, as a result of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the above disposition, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff changed to the disposition to suspend a license for 10 days, thereby giving the given 110 points with the given points. Sheet on March 31, 2018, the Plaintiff was given 15 points with the given points as “violation of signal or instructions” at the Kimpo Police Station within the jurisdiction of Kimpo Police Station around
On May 25, 2018, the Defendant rendered the “instant disposition” that revokes the driver’s license (class 1 common) pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total sum of penalty points per year exceeds 121 points, which is the criteria for revocation of license.
Applicant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition on June 14, 2018, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the petition for administrative appeal on July 17, 2018.
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. (i) Whether the instant disposition is legitimate, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused and abused discretion, considering the following as a whole: (i) the Plaintiff’s revocation of the driver’s license on the alley-ro that was discovered through a signal violation on the alley-ro through which the Plaintiff did not think of the circumstances with the point of 110 points given due to drinking driving and that the Plaintiff was found to be rarely accompanying; (ii) the Plaintiff’s revocation of the driver’s license is harsh; and (iii) the situation in which the Plaintiff did not go at present
According to Articles 93(1)1, 19, and 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and attached Table 28 of Article 91(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, 1) in the state of drinking (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration).