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 June 3, 2005, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle B while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.126% and 0.075% on June 9, 2012, while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.075% on two occasions. On December 13:30, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.052% on December 13:30.
B. On January 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the third influence of alcohol.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of various circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is responsible for the business and supply of plastic vinyl used by the farm household, and thus, is in need of a driver’s license for his family’s livelihood, and is driving at least 13 hours after drinking the preceding day and taking adequate waters, and there was no intention to drive under the influence of alcohol. The Defendant’s instant disposition constitutes a case where the Defendant’s discretion was abused or abused.
B. Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who has violated the duty not to drive under the influence of alcohol more than twice again falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license by driving under the influence of alcohol again (Article 93(1)3), the driver's license must be inevitably
Therefore, the instant disposition is a binding act under the above provision, and there is no room for discretion to the Defendant, and there is no reason to deem the said disposition unlawful, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.