beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of August 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 21, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a DNA bomb car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.169% on the front road located in Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 11, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The instant disposition is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by contingently driving, the distance of drinking driving is about 2 km, and the Plaintiff’s continuous maintenance of the status of fire-fighting officials and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood.
B. In today’s determination, there is a frequent traffic accident caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof is so harsh that it is necessary for the public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and when revoking a driver’s license on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike ordinary beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of ordinary beneficial administrative acts, public interest should be emphasized, such as ensuring traffic safety to be achieved through the revocation rather than disadvantage to the party. The Plaintiff’s drinking level constitutes the criteria for revoking a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff’s drinking level 0.169% of blood alcohol level, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level on January 19, 2004; 0.68% of blood alcohol level on June 9, 201; and 0.64% of alcohol level on blood alcohol level on June 9, 2011.