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 July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff is driving at around 06:40, in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.58% in the middle line of Taecheon-dong, Busan.
Police was controlled.
B. On July 24, 2016, at around 16:29, the Plaintiff was under the control of the police with the center line, while driving before the drainage pumps located in the Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Busan.
C. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s marks of 100 points due to drinking driving and a fine of 30 points due to the violation of traffic classification (median line), 130 points per year, and the standard marks of 121 points exceed 121 points (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 3, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 5 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) merely carried out a U-turn according to the point for left-hand turn at the time when the right-hand turn is controlled by the median line, but did not go through the central line. (2) The Plaintiff is economically difficult and the driver’s license is essential for livelihood, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.
(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.
C. 1) In full view of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments, the statement prepared by the police officer who controlled the Plaintiff is indicated as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s central line intrusion was confirmed and controlled at the time; (b) the Plaintiff did not raise any objection by being issued a penalty poster due to the central line intrusion; and (c) the fact that the penalty was paid after being paid is recognized. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was the central line intrusion at the time. (b) The discretion of the police officer who controlled the Plaintiff was handed down.