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 1, 2017, at around 21:33, the Plaintiff driven a D vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.079% of alcohol level on the front day of the C store located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.
B. On January 8, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) on the ground of drinking driving more than three occasions.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on March 23, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s blood collection was 0.079% lower than the license revocation standard, and that the Plaintiff did not cause human and physical damage due to drinking driving of this case, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the job performance and the maintenance of livelihood, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing the discretion.
B. Determination: ① The Plaintiff has already been able to revoke the driver’s license on two occasions (0.051% of blood alcohol level on January 20, 2007, 0.07.074% of blood alcohol level on February 9, 201); ② No person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol, and the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall drive the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, etc., on two or more occasions, and the latter part of Article 44(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act shall revoke the driver’s license if the person who has obtained the driver’s license violates the above law and again violates the latter part of Article 44(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act on two or more occasions, and there is no discretion to choose the suspension of the driver’s license. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant disposition is discretionary act is without merit.