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 November 1, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a Class-I ordinary driver’s license on November 11, 200, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license on July 3, 2001 under the influence of alcohol level 0.075%, while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.075%, and thereafter, was subject to a disposition of revocation of driver’s license on August 16, 2001.
On October 16, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license again and was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license on January 17, 2007 under the influence of alcohol 0.131% under the influence of alcohol.
B. On April 2, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I driver’s license. On October 28, 2017, around 01:09, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.169% of alcohol from the blood alcohol level, controlled the volume of B B B B B-type car from the public parking lot for viewing Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and the amount of B-type car from around 20 meters.
C. On November 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph; and (b) issued a disposition revoking the driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph as of December 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On March 13, 2018, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case, used the ordinary driving, the plaintiff's drinking driving of this case was significantly under the possibility of criticism and danger, and the plaintiff's driving of this case was very low. The plaintiff is driving a vehicle every day by taking charge of loading and unloading of home appliances as the C Point Roster, the driver's license is essential because there are many movement of goods between stores, and the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects to investigation agencies, the plaintiff was not married, and the plaintiff's mother was born back, and the plaintiff's attached was 3rd and narrower.