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 March 29, 2017, at around 22:55, the Plaintiff was subject to the control of drinking driving while driving C 125CC-wheeled vehicles at the front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, but rejected the measurement.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
On April 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 driver’s license) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 18, 2017, but was dismissed on July 18, 2017.
(Service Date) The service Date is August 8, 2017. 【Ground for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff responded to the police officer’s request for a drinking test at four times, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for the measurement. (2) In light of the circumstances of the above 1) and the fact that the police officer refused to conduct a blood test that did not grasp the numerical value of four times of measurement, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion or discretion. (b) The overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: (1) the Plaintiff was subject to drinking control at the front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 29, 2017, around 22:20:20; (2) D police officers confirmed that the Plaintiff had a drinking alcohol test on the face of the four times of measurement; and (3) police officers demanded the Plaintiff to take a drinking test on the same date on the same date as of March 24, 2012; and (4) police officers demanded that the Plaintiff take a drinking test on the same date on the same date; and (4) police officers on the same date on the same date on the same date.
2..