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 July 30, 2014, at around 09:20, the Plaintiff driven a B gallon vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.108%, while under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale vehicle) on August 28, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)
The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on October 28, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion as a dump truck engineer completed a sampling work, and dump dump dump dump dump dump, and dump dump dump dump, and dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump, while driving to move about about 200 meters away from the restaurant, but there was no damage, and the dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump. The disposition of this case is unlawful since it abused the plaintiff's disadvantage rather than the public interest
B. (1) Determination (1) In light of the fact that today’s automobiles are the mass means of transportation and accordingly a large amount of driver’s license is issued, and frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving occur and the results are harsh, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very large.
Therefore, the revocation of driver's license for driving on the ground of drinking driving cannot be emphasized the aspect of general prevention that should prevent drinking driving.
(2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content exceeds the driver’s license revocation standard, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content is driving under the influence of drinking, and it is inevitable to drive under the influence of alcohol.