beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large-scale and Class 1 common) as of October 18, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA private taxi (Class 1 large-scale and Class 1 common) under the influence of alcohol 0.131% in front of the convenience store in Gyeyang-si B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 2, 2016.
On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 3 million (Ulsan District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 12412) on October 21, 2015, and such summary order became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.131%.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he had maintained his family’s livelihood by driving a private taxi. The instant disposition is unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretion in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s revocation of his driver’s license to the private taxi transport business; and (b) the Plaintiff has no record of revocation or suspension of his driver’s license to the private taxi transport business; and (c)
B. In today’s determination today, there are frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and severe consequences, and thus, it is very important for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). The Plaintiff’s drinking level falls under the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem the instant disposition to be remarkably unreasonable, and the Plaintiff is bound to drive under drinking.