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 August 23, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol 0.232% at the front of the National Highway 25th of the “C”, which was located in Pyang-si B around August 7, 2019, on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a D car under the influence of alcohol 0.232%.”
B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 10, 2019, but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 22, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the need for driving to commute to and from work in light of the Plaintiff’s situation, the pertinent disposition constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s use of the substitute driving prior to the accident due to the pertinent drunk driving; and (b) five
B. (1) Determination is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today, and the results thereof are harsh, and when the driver's license is revoked on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the cancellation should be more emphasized.
(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s alcohol level is 0.232% of blood alcohol level, and the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (the blood alcohol level is 0.08% or more), the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, and the revocation of driver’s license is able to obtain a license again after the lapse of a certain period, and thus, the effect of sanctions is limited.