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 11, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.114% with a blood alcohol level, has the record of revocation of the driver’s license due to a violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.
B. On May 23, 2020, at around 01:40, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol with 0.044% alcohol level.
C. Accordingly, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on June 4, 2020, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of “drinking not less than twice”
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(D) An administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on July 24, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering the fact that there was no damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion, that the distance of movement is relatively short of 100 meters, that actively cooperates with the detection of drinking driving, such as the use of a usual driving, confession, etc., that the driver’s license of the general manager of the sports-related company is absolutely necessary when the driver’s license is revoked, and that the maintenance of livelihood, family support, and debt redemption is difficult, the instant disposition is much more likely to infringe on the public interest gained by the disposition, and thus, it is unlawful by abusing discretionary authority.
B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, where a person who was driven while under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the same Act again drives while under the influence of alcohol and thus falls under the grounds for suspension of driver's license, it is clear that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license. As such, it constitutes the requirements of the aforementioned provision.