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 September 11, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff had a history of drinking (0.322% of blood alcohol concentration) on April 9, 2002; and (b) drinking (0.231% of blood alcohol concentration) on August 16, 2004; (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.050% of blood alcohol concentration on June 11, 2014; (d) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol on the road front of Daegu Siro-si B and constitutes the ever ever ever ever ever driver’s license.
B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on October 28, 2015.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 20, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) lack of evidence to readily conclude that blood alcohol level at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol exceeds 0.050%, and the instant disposition is unlawful.
(2) Although a criminal trial has not yet become final and conclusive, the revocation of a driver’s license based on the judgment of the first instance court in a criminal case is unreasonable. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s operation of an entertainment drinking club up to a new wall and thus the Plaintiff’s operation of a motor vehicle is required for commuting to and from work, and when the driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition constitutes an abuse of discretion because it is too harsh.
B. (1) Even if it is not binding on the fact-finding of a criminal trial in an administrative trial on the erroneous determination of facts, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a decision on the facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted by the administrative trial.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28240, May 24, 2012). The Plaintiff is Daegu District Court.