beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I common account) as of July 9, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on June 13, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D QM3 car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.14% on the front road located in Yangsan City B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
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 31, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In order for the Plaintiff to continue to carry out the delivery business of goods in the distribution company and maintain his livelihood, the instant disposition is unlawful since it is too harsh that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is deemed to be essential, and thus, it deviates from and abused the discretion.
B. In light of the following circumstances, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts, the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more important than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation. The Plaintiff's drinking level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff's drinking level 0.14% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff's past history of drinking driving (0.103% of blood alcohol level on December 27, 2004) is very serious in the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and that the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving should be more serious than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation.