beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of disposition;
A. On September 10, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class 2 small-sized vehicles) on July 29, 1998, and acquired a driver’s license on October 7, 2002 (Class 1 ordinary vehicles). On October 25, 2003, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol at 0.126% of the blood alcohol level, and the driver’s license was entirely revoked on December 4, 2003. On November 10, 2003, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol at 0.060% of the blood alcohol level (Class 1 ordinary vehicles). On March 12, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license on March 14, 2014, and revoked the driver’s license under the influence of alcohol on March 16, 2014 (Class 1 ordinary vehicles).
B. On September 23, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol around 22:50% of blood alcohol concentration, driven a Crocketing car at a distance of approximately 500 meters from the front day of the southyang-si, the Southern East Highway to the front day of the access road to the Southern East-gu, Seoul Southern Highway (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”).
C. On October 23, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 17, 201.
[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 11]
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was deviates from or abused discretion in light of the fact that there is no personal or material injury caused by the drinking driving of the instant case, active cooperation in the investigation, and that the occupational driver’s license is absolutely necessary.
However, according to Article 93 (1) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the plaintiff is a driver's license in a case where a person who drives a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle for drinking again falls under the grounds for suspension of license.