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 October 21, 2019, at around 03:10 on October 21, 2019, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.112% on the street in front of the culture of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and was discovered to police officers.
B. On December 12, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary drivers’ licenses by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol as above.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On December 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 12, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's alleged driver has set up a vehicle on the road while leaving the vehicle, and the plaintiff is forced to drive a vehicle in order to detect the dangerous situation and to capture it. Thus, it constitutes an emergency evacuation.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), so the disposition of this case also should be revoked as illegal.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. According to the above evidence, especially the evidence mentioned above, Eul's evidence No. 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff was a drunk driver without a substitute engineer. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an emergency evacuation.
Contrary to this, it is difficult to believe that the statement of No. 4 is difficult, and only the statement of No. 5 and No. 6 is insufficient to reverse it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.