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 April 20, 2019, at around 00:43, the Plaintiff driven a B-fol vehicle with a alcohol level of 0.211%, while under the influence of alcohol, and 9 meters from the C-public parking lot to the E-sale road located in Si interesting City D in Si interesting City.
B. On May 16, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke each driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1%, 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 July 26, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is driving a vehicle parked in a public parking lot in order to promptly meet the acting engineer, and the driving distance is about nine meters, and there is no personal damage due to the plaintiff's drunk driving, and there is no history of traffic accident or driving under the influence of alcohol for about 13 years since the plaintiff acquired the driver's license. The plaintiff is a fire officer, who is the plaintiff is a fire officer, driving a fire-fighting vehicle with a large number of equipment with the team members every day, and moving the vehicle at a long distance as expected to move in personnel status, so it is clear that the plaintiff will leave the place of work in the future when the license is revoked, making it impossible to get him/her to commute and perform his/her duties so that he/she will discontinue his/her discretionary power because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.
B. Determination 1.