beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.30 2016구단8450

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (license number: Gangwonwon E) as of September 14, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion completed a meeting, the Plaintiff returned to the police station, but failed to find a parking place, and put up a vehicle in the vicinity of the C convenience store located in the house. After the Plaintiff returned to the representative, the Plaintiff went to the police station while driving the vehicle again while driving the vehicle on the front of the house, the Plaintiff was able to drive the vehicle on a restaurant with the nearby restaurant and the parking time with the driver who was driving the vehicle on the string, and the fact of drinking driving was discovered.

In the case of the plaintiff, 18 minutes have passed (1:54) as of the time of termination of drinking (23:36), and 90 minutes have passed (01:06). The plaintiff's driving time constitutes a rise of blood alcohol concentration and thus, the blood alcohol concentration at that time is less than 0.1%, which is the criteria for revocation of license.

However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff is in charge of the sale of beauty art materials at present, the Plaintiff is in charge of the business of selling the beauty art materials, there is a great possibility of dismissal if the driver’s license is revoked, and that it is necessary to support the mother of 7 years of age and his father of 21 years of age as the divorced status, etc., the instant disposition is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

B. As to the allegation 1 raised in the judgment, even if there is an interval between the point of time when the drinking alcohol was driven and the point of time when the blood alcohol concentration was measured, and if that time appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone.