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 October 24, 2019, at around 00:40, the Plaintiff driven a B-gu passenger car under the influence of alcohol by 0.129%, and from the D-cafeteria located in Suwon-si C, the Plaintiff driven a 200-meter amount from the D-gu restaurant located in Suwon-si C to the front day of 241 won as the same Gu enzywon.
B. On November 7, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 7, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is relatively short that human and material damage did not occur due to the plaintiff's drinking driving and the distance of driving is relatively short, the plaintiff's spouse and will not drive under influence again, and the plaintiff is engaged in insurance business. The plaintiff is currently engaged in the insurance business. If there is a customer, such as the Incheon Songdo, Seoul, Gangwon-do Ironwon, and Gyeongnam Kim-do, the plaintiff must drive regardless of where there is a customer, and he must go to the customer counseling and insurance business. In addition, the residence is several members of the office, and the office is in the place where it is impossible to use public transportation and the license is revoked because it is necessary to ensure that it is impossible to perform its duties if the license is revoked, considering the fact that the plaintiff's spouse and one child should support the plaintiff's spouse and the apartment loan should be repaid, and that the plaintiff's child should be paid to the hospital when the child last. Thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked because it excessively deviates from the discretion of the plaintiff.
(b).