beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license.
B. On March 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol content 0.073% and was subject to a disposition of driver’s license suspension. On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol content 0.079% and was subject to a disposition of driver’s license suspension.
C. On December 15, 2017, at around 21:34, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.096% of the blood alcohol concentration, driven B Sponfe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fac
Accordingly, on January 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving at least three times.
E. On February 8, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled dismissed on March 20, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5 evidence, Eul's 1 through 14 evidence (including Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of all the circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was making a drunk driving, but this does not cause human and physical damage; ② the blood alcohol content is relatively low; ③ the operation of a drum is likely to pose a threat to livelihood because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to perform his normal duties; ④ the fact that the Plaintiff was faithfully engaged in the investigation process and is against the Plaintiff’s discretion, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was an abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly harsh to the Plaintiff.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 93(2) of the same Act, a person who has driven at least twice the alcohol driving again.