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 22, 2009 and September 2, 2012, the Plaintiff was found to have been driven while under the influence of alcohol with at least 0.05% alcohol level.
B. At around 07:50 on November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.069% with a blood alcohol level of 0.069%, and was exposed to police officers who were driving B vehicles on the same intersection located in Busan East-gu (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).
C. Accordingly, on December 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who drives a motor vehicle three-time drinking.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 17, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 16, 17 evidence, Eul's 1 to 5 (including the provisional lot number list), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) At the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the plaintiff made it clear that the control police officer was subject to the disposition of suspension of license three times because he had the ability to drive under the influence of alcohol, but the plaintiff believed that "the degree of 95% of the blood measurement is equal to that of the person subject to disposition of suspension of license, and the fine is excessive, but there is no need to do so," and renounced the measurement of alcohol by means of blood collection.
As a result, the Plaintiff was unjustly deprived of the opportunity for measuring blood consumption by means of blood sampling, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B) The Plaintiff was under influence after drinking the preceding drinking, and the Plaintiff was under control, so there is no intention to drive a drunk, and there is no possibility of expectation. 2) In the case of the second drinking driving in the past of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, an acting driver has a difference in the direction of the driver.