1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person holding a Class I ordinary driver’s license (license number: B).
B. On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff was given penalty of KRW 70,00 and penalty of KRW 30,000 on the ground that he/she violated the traffic of exclusive bus lanes on expressway.
C. On May 24, 2014, at around 05:09, the Plaintiff driven a car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.075% in the blood alcohol concentration at the front of 140-1-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.
On June 3, 2014, the Defendant imposed 100 points of the above drinking driving, and issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s points of the calculation of the above driver’s license was more than 121 points during the past one year.
E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 5, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff's vehicle after drinking so that he could not see the plaintiff's age after suffering more than 5 hours since he could not at all, and thus, he would be considered to have been driving to return home, and according to the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, if the driver is an important means to maintain his family's livelihood, the given points may be reduced. The plaintiff bears the child support for his father's children after divorced from his spouse. The plaintiff bears the hospital expenses for his father's suffering from high blood pressure, blood transfusion, urology, etc., and if the driver's license is revoked because the plaintiff's duty is essential to drive, the disposition of this case is unlawful by abusing discretion.
B. (1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition has deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is subject to the pertinent disposition, which is the grounds for the disposition.