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 March 30, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.123% of alcohol level, driven a EXE car at 0.123%, from the road in front of the Kai-gu Seoul Building to the on-road parking lot located in the same Gu, the Plaintiff driven a cruise car at a distance of 1 km from the road in front of the Kai-gu Seoul Building to the Essing room located in the same Gu. On March 30, 2019.
B. On April 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the first-class and second-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.1% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 21, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff has no history of traffic accident or driving under the influence of alcohol for about 26 years since the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s driver’s license; the Plaintiff is engaged in the system operating position; the Plaintiff is engaged in the system operating position; the Plaintiff visits and takes a business trip several times a day to maintain the company’s check or transaction; the current place of residence and the company are required to use public transportation for about 40 km up to 40 km; when the license is cancelled, the Plaintiff is in a position to terminate from work because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to commute to work and perform his duties; the Plaintiff must support his spouse and two married children; and the principal and interest of the loan should be repaid. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1 sanctions are imposed.