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 May 8, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of June 4, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% on the roads of Daegu North-gu B apartment, Daegu-gu, and Cdong (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).
B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 27, 2019.
C. On June 14, 2019, the Plaintiff’s violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by Daegu District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 5131 on June 14, 2019. The Plaintiff requested formal trial (2019 High Court Decision 901), but the same year
7.1. The above claim was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s measurement of alcohol level was measured at the rise of blood alcohol level. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving was above 0.10% of the driver’s license revocation standard (0.10%). 2) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was not caused by the instant drunk driving, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was not high, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to maintain his livelihood as a person who supplies and engages in business activities, the Plaintiff’s family support and repayment are very difficult due to the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff has no traffic accident or alcohol driving history. In light of the above, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, it was unlawful.
B. In the first administrative judgment, the criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis is guilty.