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 July 3, 2019, at around 21:42, the Plaintiff driven Cenz’s passenger car while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.037% on the front of Busan-gun B, Busan-gun.
(hereinafter referred to as “dacting driving of this case”). B.
On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff was found to have been driven while under the influence of alcohol content 0.065%.
C. On July 22, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a second or higher drinking due to the instant drunk driving.
On August 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on October 1, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 4, and each entry of Eul's 1 through 4
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s alleged drinking driving did not cause damage, and the driving distance is short to 1 km.
The plaintiff has faithfully cooperated in the investigation.
The plaintiff shall pay his/her debts to the service provider, while supporting two children, who are engaged in the service provider. If the disposition of this case is maintained, the family's livelihood is enormously impeded.
Considering these circumstances, given that the Plaintiff’s private interest infringed on the public interest that would be achieved by the instant disposition is considerably large, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused discretion.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 93(1)1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), when a person who drives under the influence of alcohol again after June 30, 201 falls under a cause for the suspension of driver’s license, the head of the competent local police agency is obliged to revoke the driver’s license.
Therefore, it is true.