자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was given a mark of 110 points to the Defendant on the ground that he/she driven a low-speed car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% on the road in front of the Healian City, on the ground that he/she was under the influence of alcohol, and on August 28, 2016, he/she was given a mark of 100 points from the Defendant on the ground that he/she driven a C Poter freight under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.07% on the roads front of the Sinnam-gun, Ho-gun.
On September 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I common) as of October 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked as of October 29, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total sum of points with 210 points for one year, which was the grounds for revocation of driver’s license, became at least 121 points.
On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 15, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 7, 14, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was found to have been exposed to a drunk driving on August 28, 2016 and was found to have been subject to only one-time measurement at the time when the Plaintiff was found to have failed to be able to be able to be able to take a sobling test, and that there was an error in the measurement at the relevant drinking measuring machine, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at that time constitutes less than 0.05%, unlike the result of the alcohol alcohol measurement, and this does not constitute a ground for imposing the penalty of 100 points. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential in order to continue to work at the workplace and maintain family’s livelihood, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be employed at the other workplace if the Plaintiff lost her current workplace with the disability of 5 in spine.
(b) Nos. 5, 6, and 9-1.