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 May 18, 2017, at around 02:55, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.121% on the front of the pulse distance in the Yongsan-gu, Daejeon. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving on June 8, 2017.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 20, 2017 regarding the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on July 18, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion by the Plaintiff, which is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is engaged in his/her business and is an essential driver for the purpose of carrying out his/her occupation and maintaining his/her livelihood; (b) is a simple drinking driver who does not cause any personal and material damage; (c) is an accidentless driving career for nine years; and (d) is
B. The instant disposition is based on Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, “the disposition of this case’s revocation of driver’s license”
2. In light of the following: (a) compliance with the individual criteria for revocation and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the above criteria are significantly unfair; (b) there is no inevitable circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff was forced to drive alcohol; and (c) the administrative agency cannot be necessarily mitigated from the disposition on the ground that the driver’s license is necessary for vocational performance and the maintenance of livelihood of his/her family members, etc.; and (d) even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is sufficiently considered, the Plaintiff’s personal disadvantage due to the instant disposition is greater than the need for public interest to be achieved thereby.
Therefore, the instant disposition is a legitimate disposition taken within the scope of discretion.