자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff was driving a B car on the road at the intersection of 806 in the original city-based 01:25, around June 22, 2018, while driving the B car on the road at the intersection of 806, the Plaintiff was smelling, the Plaintiff was red, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol due to reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was driving on the b car while under the influence of alcohol, such as heavy snow snow, etc., the Plaintiff was demanded to comply with the alcohol test three times from the police officer in the Hanju Police Station C District D on the same day to 01:35 to 01:47 on the same day, but the Plaintiff did not comply
(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal to measure drinking of this case”). (b)
On July 24, 2018, the defendant revoked the driver's license (Class I large, Class I common) pursuant to Article 93 (1) 3 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the plaintiff refused to measure alcohol in this case.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on July 31, 2018, but was dismissed on September 11, 2018.
【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion (to be understood as below) 1 is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles as follows. Since the plaintiff responded to the measurement of drinking alcohol by means of concealing it in a drunk at the police officer's request, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff refused the measurement of drinking alcohol. Accordingly, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful. 2) Unlike the abuse of discretionary power (i.e., refusal of measurement of drinking alcohol), the plaintiff responded to the measurement of drinking alcohol three times at the police officer's request, and the plaintiff was committed as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., refusal of the measurement of drinking alcohol) on the ground that it was not intentionally hidden, and there are extenuating circumstances. 2) The plaintiff's work as a medium-sized engineer, and it is difficult to maintain his/her livelihood if his/her driver's license is revoked.