beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.07.26 2017구단10587

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 1, class 1, class 1 (class 2), and class 2) as of May 8, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D cargo with the influence of 0.104% of blood alcohol level on the front of the Changwon Factory of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 20, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential to maintain the family’s livelihood by continuously driving the Plaintiff’s alleged truck, the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. In today's judgment, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving occur frequently and the results are harsh, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of a driver's license on the grounds of drinking driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is clearly unreasonable. The Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes the other party driver while driving a drinking, and the Plaintiff had a record of driving a drinking driving in the past. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18100, Aug. 8, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 1820, Aug. 20, 2003>