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 April 26, 2019, at around 06:26, the Plaintiff operated CK5 car volume on the front of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and subsequently denied the measurement.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
On May 3, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I large, class I ordinary, and class II motorcycles) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 22, 2019, but was dismissed on July 9, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 7 through 13, the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff actively cooperates in police investigations after the refusal of the alcohol measurement of this case, and there was no personal injury, the driving distance is only 300 meters, the Plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle on duty is essential for delivery services, and economic difficulties are experienced by the Plaintiff’s operator of the delivery restaurant, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
B. According to Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), if a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that a police officer was under the influence of alcohol, the defendant should revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant cannot 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 dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.