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 April 22, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired Class 2 ordinary driving licenses, Class 1 ordinary driving licenses on January 25, 2003, and Class 1 large driving licenses on December 18, 2013, respectively.
B. On September 2, 2015, at around 22:18, the Plaintiff driven a B high-est car owned by the Plaintiff from the front day of the Ulsan-gu Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, to the front day of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, under the influence of alcohol content 0.125% of alcohol level.
C. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for each of the above driving vehicles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was a drunk driving.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 10, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 18 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of disposition.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no history of traffic accident and traffic offense, and the Plaintiff’s request for a proxy engineer on the day of the instant case, but it was inevitably driven due to the failure of the proxy engineer to take care of it, the Plaintiff is born with chronic hepatitis B, and the Plaintiff seems to have been living in high drinking level compared to the drinking volume at the time of the instant case due to the influence of the drugs with the above branch and branch. The Plaintiff had been living in New Tink, Inc. at the time of the instant case. At the time of the revocation of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff was engaged in driving in new Tink, Inc., Ltd., with a view to the fact that there was no history of traffic accident and traffic offense, and the Plaintiff’s demand for a proxy engineer on the instant day, but it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to take care of it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it abused
(b) a judgment-based administrative disposition.