자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 16, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 1, and class 1) on September 13, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.063%, while driving the motor vehicle on two occasions under the influence of alcohol of 0.059% on June 17, 201, and driving the motor vehicle on three occasions under the influence of alcohol of 0.058% on August 29, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.058% on three occasions.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff explained that the blood alcohol level of 0.058% through the breath measurement at the time of the breath test of this case was “the suspension of driver’s license should be made because the breath level was not high.” The Plaintiff believed the horses of the control police officer and did not demand a “breath measurement by blood collection.” However, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license unlike the instructions of the control police officer. In the end, the instant disposition based on the breath measurement was unlawful as long as the Plaintiff lost the opportunity to measure alcohol due to Plaintiff’s blood collection from the point of time due to the erroneous explanation by the control police officer. 2) The Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary for the Plaintiff to lead a large-scale truck driving at breacon company, and the cancellation of the driver’s license of this case was necessary. In full view of all the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s extremely active service in the ordinary local community, and the Plaintiff’s depth of drinking driving of this case is against the discretionary authority.
B. We examine the first argument on the determination of the first argument, and ① Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act provides “the driver is drunk.”