beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.06.10 2016누20333

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of this case was that the defendant revoked the plaintiff's driver's license on the ground that the plaintiff was exposed to drinking more than three times.

The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from or abusing discretionary power.

B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act’s judgment at the court of the first instance, in a case where the driver’s license is to be revoked on the grounds of suspension of the driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol once or more times again while driving under the influence of alcohol, the administrative agency should not have the discretion to determine whether to revoke or suspend the driver’s license, and without fail, revoke

In addition, according to the attached Table 18 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the owner of the first-class driver's license shall be allowed to drive a motorcycle up to the motorcycle, and the revocation of the first-class driver's license includes the purpose of prohibiting the driving of the motorcycle naturally. Therefore, if the driver of the first-class driver's license drives a vehicle which can be driven by the first-class driver's

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9672, Nov. 25, 1994). The fact that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.062% on August 18, 2015 is as seen above, and according to the evidence No. 11-5 and No. 6, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.09% on January 20, 2007 on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.072% on June 8, 2008.

Thus, the plaintiff had already driven two or more times before driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, and again conducted the driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, and thus constitutes a ground for suspending the driver's license.