beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.27 2017구단1129

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 25, 2017, at around 00:55, the Plaintiff driven a Danland under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.073% in front of C real estate located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.

B. On August 17, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of drunk driving at least three occasions.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on September 6, 2017, but the said claim was dismissed on November 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and abused discretion, considering the fact that the plaintiff has no intention to drive under the influence of alcohol, the driving distance is very short, and the driver's license is essential for the sake of vocational performance and the maintenance of livelihood, etc., when the plaintiff is too harsh and the plaintiff is waiting for the acting engineer, moved about about 5 meters in the vehicle, waiting for the acting engineer, was reported while waiting for the acting engineer.

B. Determination: (1) The Plaintiff already had the history of driving under the influence of alcohol twice (0.083% of blood alcohol level on November 14, 2006, 0.06.061% of blood alcohol level on March 16, 2010); (2) the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million on December 21, 2017 due to the instant driving under the influence of alcohol; (3) the said summary order has become final and conclusive (Seoul District Court Branching Daejeon District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 5940), and Article 44(1) and 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, and “no person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol, and the commissioner of a district police agency shall revoke the relevant driver’s license in cases where a person who has obtained the driver’s license violates Article 44(1) or the latter part of Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice, and again violates Article 444(1).