자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On May 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I large-scale vehicle) as of July 12, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a BSM 2 under the influence of alcohol level of 0.14% on the roads near the Gapo-dong of Mapo-si, Mapo-si, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.14% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 8, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to maintain his family’s livelihood, a driver’s license is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood, the Plaintiff only driven a short distance, and the Plaintiff did not have the power to drive alcohol, the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused and abused discretion.
B. In light of the fact that today's judgment today requires frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and the result thereof is harsh, so it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more serious than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for 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 alcohol concentration 0.14%, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable according to the criteria, the traffic safety order to be achieved through the instant disposition, even considering the