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 27, 2019, around 03:16, the Plaintiff operated Cone Star Motor Vehicle on the front of the Hanam-si, B, and had Cone Star Motor Vehicle under the influence of drinking, but rejected the measurement.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
On May 8, 2019, 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 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 with the police investigation after the refusal to measure alcohol of this case, and there was no personal injury, the driving distance is only 500 meters, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operation is essential for delivery business to employees engaged in the distribution business, and the Plaintiff experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.
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.