beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the issue
가. 원고가 이미 술에 취한 상태(☞ 혈중 알코올 농도 0.117% 또는 0.143%)에서 자동차를 운전하다가 적발된 사실이 있었음에도 2018. 5. 10. 21:24경 다시 술에 취한 상태(☞ 혈중 알코올 농도 0.066%)로 자동차를 운전하다가 적발되어 약식 기소된 사정에 기초하여, 피고가 2018. 5. 30. 원고에게 -별지(☞ 을 1)에 나오는 바와 같이- 이 사건 처분을 한 이 사건에서, 원고는 청구원인으로 이 사건 처분이 재량권의 범위를 벗어났거나 재량권을 남용한 것이어서 위법하다는 취지로 주장한다.
B. However, Article 93(1) proviso 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "if a person who has violated at least twice the latter part of Article 44(1) or (2) falls under the grounds for suspension of a driver's license again due to a violation of Article 44(1), the driver's license shall be revoked." In such a case, it is apparent that the disposition agency has no discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license, and there is no room to discuss the limitations of discretion in the process of revoking the driver's license based on such grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12042, Nov. 12, 2004). The instant disposition taken based on the above grounds for disposition and made pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is legitimate, and the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendant had discretion during the process of taking the instant disposition cannot be accepted without further review.
2. Accordingly, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.