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 May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.124%, while under the influence of alcohol 0.124%, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.08% on February 5, 2018.
B. On February 19, 2019, at around 00:21, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.054% of alcohol, driven the B’s freight vehicle 20 meters from the front road in the vicinity of the Sungnam-gu, Seonam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-do to the road in front of the 55 comprehensive playground day.
C. On March 19, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had been driving again under the influence of drinking more than twice (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on May 14, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following: (a) the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (b) the Plaintiff’s waiting time to drive the car after deducting the vehicle from the parking lot was controlled; (c) the distance of the vehicle driven is short; (d) there was no personal or physical damage due to the Plaintiff’s drunk driving; and (e) the Plaintiff is going against and again going to not drive a drunk; and (d) the Plaintiff is a business position that sells the product by carrying the truck on the truck and selling the product at the nationwide event six days a week; and (e) when the license is revoked, it is impossible to perform its duties; and (e) the instant disposition is in the position that the Plaintiff should lose its discretionary power. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is so excessive to the
B. Determination is based on the proviso of Article 93(1) and subparagraph 2 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).