beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.11.11 2020구단69192

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On February 10, 2020: (a) around 00:05, the Plaintiff driven CM5 vehicle volume on the front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while driving at a two-lane of 0.112% alcohol level on the road, and driving at a two-lane of 0.3-lanes (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”). While the Plaintiff changed the course to a three-lane of 0.3-lane, the Plaintiff shocked the back part of the rocketing taxi signaled in the front direction of the above SM5 (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff sustained approximately three weeks from the driver of the said rocketing taxi, and from the passengers of the said rocketing, the Plaintiff sustained the necessary injury for each treatment of at least two weeks in the front of the said SM5.

On March 3, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant traffic accident with one person while driving the instant motor vehicle while driving the instant motor vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 20, 2020, but was dismissed on June 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 10, 12, and 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, are asserted by the plaintiff as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate after drinking, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff would have been made a full rest thereafter, and thus, the plaintiff did not have any intention to drive under the influence of alcohol, the victims' injury was minor and compensation was completed, and some agreements were reached. The plaintiff has no history of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the plaintiff has no history of driving under the influence of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the driver's license for driving under the influence of local business while working for the company producing signboards, etc., is essential means to maintain the livelihood of his family, and it is difficult to observe the individual rehabilitation plan if the plaintiff lost his workplace due to the disposition of