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 December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a B-L car from the 15th apartment of the distribution new distribution 15th apartment of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul to the front day of the Gangnam New World department store with a blood alcohol content of 0.075% under the influence of alcohol.
B. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driving license as of February 6, 2016, by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s marks 100 points due to the above drunk driving and 30 points due to the median line, totaling 130 points due to the median line 130 points and exceeds 121 points, which are the criteria for cancellation of the accumulated percentage points for one year.
C. On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 8, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion is against the depth of driving under influence of alcohol. On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued an ad hoc protection order by her husband for domestic violence and received an ad hoc protection order from the family court on December 28, 2015. On December 28, 2015, Seoul Family Court issued a summons from the Defendant for assault with the victim of a home protection case to drink, and the Plaintiff got 30 points for the central line crime on September 26, 2015. The Plaintiff was given 30 points for the Defendant’s main line with the Defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol, was under the treatment of an an ad hoc under the influence of alcohol. Since the Plaintiff acquired the driver’s license, driving under the influence of alcohol was the first time of the instant case, and the blood alcohol concentration of the instant vehicle was insignificant, and the Plaintiff’s parent and child were over 130 points to cancel the Plaintiff’s operation and fostering of the child.