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 February 21, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 driver's license on September 25, 200, and obtained a Class 1 driver's license on September 25, 200 (0.061%) to suspend the driver's license on December 6, 2001; to suspend the driver's license on November 3, 2002; to be subject to the suspension of the driver's license on October 3, 2002; to be subject to the suspension of the driver's license on October 13, 200 (0.115%) to be subject to the special reduction and exemption of the driver's license on August 15, 200 for the offender of the Road Traffic Act, and to obtain the Class 1 driver's license (B) on September 17, 2009.
B. On July 26, 2018, around 01:23, the Plaintiff driven approximately 300 meters of the volume of G-manufactured car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.107% at the same time on the front of D in Silung-si C, and the front of F-Ick in E at the same time (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).
C. On August 17, 2018, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
The disposition was made to revoke the driver's license stated in the port (hereinafter "the disposition of this case"). D.
The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 20, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff used the ordinary driving, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the plaintiff's drinking driving of this case is relatively minor. Therefore, the possibility and risk of criticism for the drinking driving of this case is significantly low, and the plaintiff is in charge of A/S as the head of H's technical and business team, and the plaintiff must go off to Daejeon, Yan, Yan, Incheon, and Ansan.