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 October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) performed drinking alcohol around 23:10 on October 8, 201; and (b) visited the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station by driving B 125C Y, and was discovered to police officers.
B. On October 8, 2019, at around 23:38, the Plaintiff was measured at 0.082% of alcohol level as a result of the respiratory measurement.
C. On October 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 large, class 1 large, class 1 large, class 2 small, class 2 small, and class 2 motorcycles) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven B vehicles in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.082% on the street front of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On November 8, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 10, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After the non-existence of the grounds for disposition 30 to 90 minutes of blood alcohol becomes the highest level. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at around 00:16 on October 8, 2019 after the lapse of 90 minutes from the Plaintiff’s drinking alcohol. Thus, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at around 23:10 on October 8, 2019 at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving. Since the Plaintiff’s operation was completed at around 23:10 on October 8, 2019, and the rebreath rate at around 23:38 on the same day, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at around 23:10 on October 23, 2019 at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol at issue is highly probable to be less than 0.08% of the Plaintiff’s license revocation, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case’s drinking alcohol concentration at least 08% was unlawful.