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 26, 2003 and April 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was found to have been driven while under the influence of alcohol above 0.05%.
B. On May 26, 2017, around 22:31, the Plaintiff was found to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.071% as a result of the pulmonary measurement (hereinafter “the instant drinking measurement”) conducted by a police officer who was exposed to a police officer who was under control on driving a vehicle on the front road C in Seo-gu, Busan.
C. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person driving three times under influence of alcohol.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 22, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.
1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition in this case was conducted from 22:10, the final drinking time on the same day, 21 minutes later, and 22:31. Since the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was 0.05% higher than the actual blood alcohol concentration due to the remainder of alcohol in the mouth due to tlim, earth, etc. immediately after drinking, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was 0.05% or more. (ii) At the time of the measurement of the so-called alcohol level in this case, the police officer in charge of the control of the police officer at the time of the measurement of the so-called the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was confirmed two times, and notified the Plaintiff of the erroneous fact that
As a result, the Plaintiff was unjustly deprived of the opportunity to measure drinking by means of blood collection in reliance on the horses of enforcement officers, the instant disposition is the principle of trust protection.