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 January 18, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for a motorcycle and Class I driver’s license for a Class II driver’s license on November 22, 1987. On September 10, 1991, the Plaintiff obtained a Class I ordinary and Class II driver’s license for a motor vehicle on September 17, 1991. On May 17, 2019, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for a common and Class II driver’s license (B) on September 17, 1991. On May 20:50, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.131%, while driving a Class III driver’s license for a motor vehicle in the D restaurant located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the Plaintiff caused a heavy-frequency vehicle that was parked due to neglect of an obligation to stop.
B. On June 13, 2019, 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 to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 20, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) 1 is merely 3 meters away from the restaurant parking lot in which a blocking machine is installed, so it is not driving on the road under the Road Traffic Act. 2) The plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving even before driving of the instant case. The distance of drinking driving in this case was shorter than the distance of driving, the plaintiff was likely to have a substitute engineer, the plaintiff was the first offender after acquiring a driver's license in 1987, the plaintiff was the first offender after acquiring the driver's license in 1987, the fact that the driver's license is essential in order to conduct the sales business as a business director of the Frandi selling company, and the spouse and children must be supported.