beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of July 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.112% on the roads of coffee C, C, C, C, and C, C, C, and C, C, C, C, and C, C, C, and C, and C, B.
On July 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 8, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to obtain a driver’s license in order to maintain his family’s livelihood by continuing his/her business and delivery business while working in the main place, and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act
1. F. In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards prescribed under the above, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority.
B. In today’s determination, since the frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently caused and the results of the accident are harsh, it is highly necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Unlike the case of general beneficial administrative act, the revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of drinking driving should focus on the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than on the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff’s drinking level constitutes the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition to be remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff has the history of drinking driving on July 30, 200; the Plaintiff has a alcohol level of 0.73% alcohol level on blood alcohol level on March 8, 2012.