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 February 1, 200, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, and around March 1, 2017, around 03:10, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.056% in front of the building, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.056% in front of the building, Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.
B. On April 18, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license by applying Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Defendant’s marks 100 points due to the drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph and 30 points due to the violation of the traffic classification (median line) on March 1, 2017, and the marks 130 points, which are 121 points or more, which are the criteria for cancelling the accumulated points of points for one year.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on May 16, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of the instant disposition
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that he had obtained the driver’s license, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority, in light of the overall circumstances, including the following: (a) faithfully driven as an exemplary driver in compliance with traffic regulations without one recommendation but without one driving power; (b) driving a simple and reasonable driving; (c) driving of a heavy drinking; (d) gross alcohol concentration is minor; and (e) the accumulation of existing penalty points led to the revocation of the driver’s license; (b) the Plaintiff served in the facility team of Incheon Airport Energy (U.S.) as a person in charge of electric power plant maintenance and maintenance; and (c) has become essential for the Plaintiff
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is objectively the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.