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 December 26, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for an autonomous bicycle and obtained Class II driver’s license on February 25, 2004. However, on October 26, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license suspension on the ground of alcohol driving (0.064%) on October 26, 2008. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license revocation. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license for an ordinary motor vehicle on June 12, 201, but was subject to the disposition of the driver’s license revocation on the drinking (0.096% of blood alcohol level) on at least three occasions on February 7, 2013.
B. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff again acquired a Class II ordinary car driver’s license (B), and around December 20, 2018, at around 00:19, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.14% from C to D in the city of Si interest to D in the city of Si interest, from C around the city of Si interest to D in the influence of alcohol 0.14% (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).
C. On January 16, 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 due to the instant drunk driving.
The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 5, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff used a usual driving, and tried to use a substitute driving immediately before the driving of the pertinent drinking, the plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident through the pertinent drinking driving, the possibility and risk of criticism for the driving of the instant drinking, and the plaintiff needs a driver's license to perform the duty of supplying goods as an employee of the small and medium enterprise in the FSC, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.