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 July 28, 2019, at around 07:03, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle F in the state of alcohol at approximately 4.5 km from the road in front of the restaurant located in the Kuju-si B to the road in front of the E convenience store located in the Kuju-si.
(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)
At the time of the crackdown on drinking driving of this case, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was measured by 0.115%.
C. On August 15, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 or (3) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving the instant drunk.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on August 26, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 15, 2019.
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion did not obstruct the flow of traffic or cause an accident due to driving under the influence of alcohol in this case.
The plaintiff has complied with the law for about 11 years and has been engaged in exemplary driving.
The actual distance of the plaintiff's movement is about 5km relatively short.
The plaintiff made a net confession of all the facts of the crime, and made a decision that he will not drive under the influence of alcohol twice again.
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of the development of groundwater, the driver's license in terms of the characteristics of the job is essential, and the driver's license is also required to assist the parent and maintain his/her livelihood.
Considering these circumstances, the instant disposition is excessively unreasonable for the Plaintiff.
3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
4. Determination
A. Whether a punitive administrative disposition has deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is a ground for the disposition.