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 14, 2017, around 23:34, the Plaintiff operated a benz car on the front side of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, and had it under the influence of drinking, but rejected the measurement.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
On November 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 12, 2017, but was dismissed on January 23, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and Eul 1, 2, 5, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was committed by a group of violence against three men at the time of the refusal of the alcohol measurement of this case, the Plaintiff’s refusal of the alcohol measurement of this case was caused by light of the following: (a) there was no yellow dust and no normal accident; (b) human and physical damage was not caused at the time of the instant case; (c) the Plaintiff is in the duty of investigation on the sewerage site; (d) the Plaintiff is in need of the operation of a vehicle while the driver’s license of this case is revoked, it is impossible to perform his duties when the driver’s license is revoked
B. According to Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, if a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite a reasonable ground to acknowledge that a person is under the influence of alcohol, the defendant shall revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant shall not be deemed to have a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke the license, taking into account the Plaintiff’s circumstances, etc.
On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit.