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 November 20, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 driver’s license for a motorcycle (B), Class 2 driver’s license for a Class 2 on October 22, 1993, and Class 1 driver’s license for a Class 2 on June 27, 1994. On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident resulting in a part of the instant vehicle, i.e., a vehicle with approximately 0.10% of blood alcohol level, while under the influence of alcohol level from March 8, 2018 to 360-1, while driving a Class 7 km driver’s license for a Class 2 motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level.
B. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 15, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority and abuse of discretionary authority in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff directly driven the vehicle and supplied it to the transaction partners across the country whenever the Plaintiff is absent from office as CCO shipping team D, Co., Ltd. from December 1, 1991; (b) the number of blood alcohol level at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol; (c) the blood alcohol level at the time of driving under the instant case was minor; (d) the Plaintiff agreed with the victim of the traffic accident caused by the instant drunk driving; (e) the damage was minor; and (e) the Plaintiff is receiving medical treatment with a narrowness; and (e) the mother of 70 years of age must be regularly treated.
B. The judgment-1 punitive administrative disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion by social norms.