자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On April 1, 199, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) on October 5, 2006, and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.112% on October 5, 2006, and the driver’s license was revoked on November 14, 2006. On December 7, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on May 1, 2009, while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.209% on May 21, 2009, and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.209% on June 21, 2009. The driver’s license was revoked on May 23, 2011 (Class II ordinary).
B. On October 20, 2019, at around 09:21, the Plaintiff driven a CA car (SM5) at a distance of approximately 200 meters from the front of the 200-meter C car (hereinafter referred to as “instant drinking driving”) from the 200-meter C car (hereinafter referred to as “instant drinking driving”).
C. On November 5, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drinking driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on November 27, 2019, but was dismissed on January 14, 2020.
[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 12]
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was deviating from or abused discretion in light of the fact that there is no personal or physical injury caused by the drinking driving of the instant case, the use of a usual driving and active cooperation in the investigation, and the absolute necessity of the driver’s license.
However, according to Articles 93(1)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff has a history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is the Defendant.
Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff was on a different premise.