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 21, 198, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B) on June 21, 198. On February 6, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a Category C truck with blood alcohol level of 0.114% while under the influence of alcohol level of 18:10% on February 6, 2016; (b) driven a c truck with the driver’s freight level of 0.14% on the two parallels in the two parallels in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu; and (c) escaped without any measure, the Plaintiff, by shocking the slider in the opposite direction to cause physical damage.
B. On February 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on March 21, 2016, but was dismissed on June 14, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not violate traffic regulations since he acquired the driver's license on 1988, and the plaintiff's driver's license is essential because he/she carries out personal service and delivers goods, and the driver's license is revoked and it is difficult to live. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is illegal that the plaintiff abused its discretion too harshly by abusing its discretion.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, the blood alcohol level at the time of the plaintiff is about 0.114% exceeding 0.05%, the limit of permission for drunk driving, and above all, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was unable to avoid drunk driving, and even if the plaintiff actually causes a traffic accident causing physical damage, the risks have been realized by leaving the site and leaving the site. The plaintiff did not report after the traffic accident on October 22, 198, and had the record of violation of signals or instructions on October 10, 2009.