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 June 22, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license, and the Class I ordinary driver’s license on March 23, 1993, but on January 18, 1995, under the influence of alcohol above 0.1%, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition for revocation of the driver’s license. On February 6, 1996, Class II ordinary driver’s license (B), Class II ordinary driver’s license on March 23, 1996, and Class I ordinary driver’s license on May 4, 200.
B. On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff, at around 00:19, was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.126% from the vicinity of the Maban-si to the front road of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.126%, Dpoter 2 cargo vehicles were controlled on the driving day of about 5km.
C. On November 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license as of December 25, 2017, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 6, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff requested an agent before driving under the influence of alcohol in this case. The plaintiff was refused to drive under the ground that the plaintiff's vehicle is a cargo for business use. The plaintiff's driving under the influence of alcohol in this case but did not cause a traffic accident. The plaintiff's driving under the influence of alcohol in this case was significantly low in possibility of criticism and danger. The plaintiff purchased a heavy freight with no special expertise, and it is necessary to drive a vehicle for business use for 14 hours per day. The plaintiff needs to maintain his livelihood. The blood alcohol concentration level is minor at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the plaintiff actively cooperates with and reflects to investigation agencies, and the plaintiff bears household debts.