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. The Plaintiff is a person holding Class 1 large and Class 2 ordinary driver’s license (B). On December 29, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol at around 23:30, the Plaintiff driven the amount of the car owned by the Plaintiff from the mutual influence 0.123% at the time of the original week to the front of the Non-dong Residential Center located in 14-10, the Man-dong Residential Center at the time of the original week.
B. On January 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016) on the ground that the Plaintiff was under influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on March 15, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 5 and 8 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff spawn with his spawn with his spawn, completed the training of his spawn, and then was found to have been driven by spawn without any choice of time. The plaintiff was found to have violated traffic regulations on July 18, 1994 except for the case of violation of the spawn test until the occurrence of this case since the above driver's license was obtained on July 18, 1994. The plaintiff did not violate traffic regulations on December 30, 200: 0:15, which was about 50 minutes after the spawnnn from the spawnnnnn-si D zone as above, and the blood alcohol concentration was measured to 0.123%, but according to the above swnmark formula, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff's alcohol level exceeded 0.1%, according to the above swnish formula, the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion.