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 September 26, 191, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II driver’s license (B), Class II driver’s license on November 9, 1993, Class I driver’s license on August 3, 1995, Class II driver’s license on July 2, 2008, Class I driver’s license on July 9, 2014, and Class I driver’s license on July 14:15, 2017, respectively, and around December 14:15, 2017, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident under the influence of 0.292-101 U.S. under the influence of 0.292% (hereinafter “traffic accident under the influence of 0.29% in front of the Seocho-do, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Seoul, to the upper half of the 1042-101 U.S. 1).
B. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph as of January 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act due to the drunk driving as stated in the preceding paragraph to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 27, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is sufficient to revoke only the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driver’s license, first-class ordinary driver’s license, first-class ordinary driver’s license, and first-class large driver’s license, and the second-class driver’s license cannot be revoked. Thus, the instant disposition revoking all the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s measure was unlawful. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration measured at the time of the instant traffic accident compared to the amount of drinking alcohol. The instant traffic accident is minor and there is no victim. The Plaintiff was a safe driving for 24 years, and the Plaintiff is economically difficult due to support for the aged parent and household debts.