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 4, 2019, the Plaintiff, from around 18:00 to around 10:0, driven a passenger car with low price on the front of the B Apartment at the early 22:18, supra.
During the operation of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, while stopping in front of the Plaintiff, has caused a traffic accident that shocks the back part of the cargo vehicle.
B. The above A.
Upon receiving the report of a traffic accident under paragraph (1), the police officer belonging to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station shall demand the Plaintiff to comply with the alcohol alcohol measurement on the ground that the Plaintiff “any reasonable ground to deem that the Plaintiff was driven under the influence of alcohol.”
(hereinafter “instant request for measurement of drinking alcohol.” However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the above request for measurement of drinking alcohol.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). C.
On April 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)3 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in this case.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition on May 7, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said claim on June 4, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2 through 8, Eul 1 through 14 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In order for the Plaintiff’s alleged police officer to demand a measurement of alcohol, it should be the case where “the driver has considerable reasons to recognize that the driver was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.”
However, in the case of this case, there is an interval of about 4 hours between the plaintiff's drinking time and the driving time, or the plaintiff's drinking volume, etc.