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 27, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), and around 16:45 on December 27, 2015, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.131% of alcohol, caused a traffic accident that causes the driver of the victimized vehicle to inflict an injury, such as acute salt, in need of two weeks’ medical treatment, by driving C high-speed car while under the influence of alcohol at 0.131%.
B. Accordingly, on January 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on January 29, 2016, but was dismissed on March 8, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's assertion was about 4-5 m of so-called so-called so-called so-called 4-5 m of so-called so-called the plaintiff's blood alcohol level was measured accurately at that time, and there is doubt as to whether the blood alcohol level was measured accurately, and the plaintiff is engaged in the business of transporting the article by vehicle in the name of F while operating the package board company. The plaintiff cannot be employed separately due to the detailed director's circumstances, so if the driver's license is revoked, the plaintiff's economic activity and his family's livelihood are very difficult. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is excessively harsh to the plaintiff, and it is unlawful that the defendant abused his discretionary power.
B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 10 of Eul, the blood alcohol level at the time of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a low quantity of 0.131% exceeding 0.05%, which is the limit permitted for drinking alcohol driving, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the results of the pulmonary measurement at the time.