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 October 26, 2018, at around 03:10, the Plaintiff driven a DNscoo car while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.163% in the section of approximately 500 meters from the front to the front of C from the Do of the Gu Government-si.
B. On November 12, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On November 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 8, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff obstructed the flow of the vehicle due to the pertinent drunk driving or did not cause any traffic accident.
The plaintiff has used a substitute driving at ordinary drinking, and at the time of the driving of the case, the plaintiff used a substitute driving at the time of moving from the first drinking place to another drinking place, but did not use a substitute driving at the time of returning home.
After detection of drunk driving, the Plaintiff actively cooperated and reflected in the investigation.
Since the plaintiff's occupation is a construction business operator, the driver's license is essential for performing its duties.
When a driver's license is revoked, the driver's license should be terminated at present, and any plaintiff who has no special technology may not seek another day.
The plaintiff supports mother-child and is also economically difficult.
Considering the above circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, the substance of the offense as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances pertaining thereto.