자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2 motor vehicles) as of October 11, 2017, on September 13, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a DNA rocketing motor vehicle under the influence of 0.161% of blood alcohol level on the front of the C cafeteria located in the cafeteria-gun (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 19, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood by continuing to carry out the goods transport service at work.
B. In today's judgment, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving occur frequently and the result thereof is harsh, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff's drinking level 0.161% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes a shock of the vehicle parked adjacent to the road while driving under the influence of drinking, and the blood alcohol concentration of the blood alcohol level on July 24, 1998, which was conducted on July 24, 198.