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 27, 2019, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.082% by blood alcohol level on July 27, 2019, and 10 meters from the parking lot located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road.
B. On August 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking each driver’s license stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on September 24, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff's vehicle behind the building was parked in front so that the substitute engineer can easily find it, the driving distance was short and drinking level was insignificant, and no accident was caused. The plaintiff's driver's license is essential due to the characteristics of the plaintiff's occupation that must make a customer in the country and conduct business activities, so the cancellation of the driver's license is difficult to perform his/her duties, and there is no fact of drinking driving for about 25 years since the acquisition of the driver's license, and the plaintiff's spouse and two children must support the plaintiff's child and must repay the loan. In light of the above, the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff and has abused discretion.
B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is consistent with the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest and the corresponding disposition.