자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On July 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license, driven a F vehicle to the front road located in D on the front road located in Yong-Namnam Cancer-gun, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.085% alcohol level, around July 30, 201.
B. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license on the ground of the above drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on September 19, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s alleged blood alcohol concentration is not high; (b) the manufacturer and seller of steel, etc. operates the manufacturer and seller of steel, and the visit to the customer requires a driver’s license for occupation due to frequent business trips; (c) the support of family members is necessary; and (d) the revocation of a driver’s license is likely to interfere with the livelihood; and (e) the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest to be gained due to the instant disposition; and (e) there is an error of abuse of discretion.
B. According to the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, when a person who has driven at least twice a drunk driving again falls under the grounds for the suspension of driver’s license, the competent commissioner of a district police agency shall necessarily revoke the driver’s license. As such, such administrative disposition is a binding act with no room for discretion.
However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the plaintiff was found to have violated the Road Traffic Act twice by driving under the influence of alcohol 0.056% on March 20, 201, and driving under the influence of alcohol 0.05% on May 4, 201, and driving under the influence of alcohol 0.160% on May 4, 201. Accordingly, the disposition of revocation of the driver's license on the ground of the driving under the premise of such power.