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 January 20, 2020, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle B under the influence of alcohol of 0.045% with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.045% at around 00:31, 2020, and operated a section of approximately 3 km from the influence of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the roads adjacent to the Namdong-dong Gyeongdong-dong Incheon Metropolitan City.
B. On March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff was revoked the driver’s license on the ground that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol content 0.181%.
C. On February 8, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was making a drunk driving twice or more (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on March 9, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on May 12, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the disposition of this case should be judged by comparing and balancing the public interest and private interest of the punitive administrative disposition, that there was no personal or material damage accident, that is a relatively short travel distance, that is, the use of ordinary driving by proxy, that was actively cooperated with the investigation agency, that the degree of infringement of private interest caused by the cancellation of the driver's license is excessive, that is, the plaintiff is in the position of optician in C, and that materials necessary for the trial, internal sales, and internal production should be prevented from the Incheon's customer, and that the same-sex should be prevented from performing his/her principal duties if the license is revoked, and that the disposition of this case should be done only because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.