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 April 22, 2017, at around 06:00, the Plaintiff driven a Clearning car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.072% at the front side of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.
(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)
On May 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had been engaged in drinking not less than three times, including the instant drinking driving. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on July 18, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful by abusing discretion when considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion merely driven approximately 2,3 meters in order to facilitate a substitute driver to find a vehicle easily; (b) the driving of the instant motor vehicle does not cause human and material injury due to the pertinent drinking; and (c) the Plaintiff’s license for driving the motor vehicle absolutely requires a driver’s license for driving the motor vehicle.
B. The proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver’s license shall be revoked in cases where a person who violated at least twice the latter part of Article 44(1) or the latter part of Article 44(2) again violates Article 44(1) and thus constitutes a ground for the suspension of driver’s license. It is evident that there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the license to the disposition
Therefore, the abuse of discretion by the administrative agency is not a problem in the disposition of this case against the plaintiff who was found to have a drinking driving force twice or more in the past but also by a drinking driving.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.