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 October 9, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license, but was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license by driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.187% on February 3, 2009. On August 15, 2009, the Plaintiff again acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B) on September 11, 2009.
B. On April 2, 2018, at around 00:25, the Plaintiff: (a) was under the influence of alcohol of approximately 100 meters from the home plug parking lot in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the front of the apartment, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of approximately 0.122% from the home plug parking lot of the second floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu to the front of the apartment.
C. On April 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the instant drunk driving.
The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed on June 12, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff has used the ordinary driving; the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration is minor at the time of the driving of this case; the plaintiff needs the driving of the motor vehicle due to the driving of the barfra D store's performance as an employee of the Hafra D store D store, and the driving of the motor vehicle due to the pain treatment conducted by the cardiofraer D store. The plaintiff actively cooperates with the investigative agency in relation to the drinking driving of this case; the plaintiff must support not only his spouse and two children, but also the father's hospital expenses and household debts.