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 September 16, 2001, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.110%, while under the influence of alcohol 0.110%, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.145% on August 5, 2015.
B. After that, on February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.058% of blood alcohol level around 01:50%, driven BK9 automobiles from the nearest of the Seoul Mapo-gu C Hospital to the front road of Kimpo-si 566-6, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 24.5km, and thereafter, string off the string of the intersection installed near the said intersection as the Plaintiff’s car.
C. On March 20, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had been driving under the influence of drinking more than twice (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on April 30, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On the day, the Plaintiff completed the drinking field at around 01:0 and the alcohol measurement was conducted at around 01:53. The blood alcohol concentration after the last drinking is generally known to have increased between 30-90 minutes and the highest level. As such, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving constitutes a rise in the blood alcohol concentration at the above time that the Plaintiff measured by drinking. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving is likely to have higher than the measured value (0.05%). Accordingly, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving fell under 0.05% or more, was unlawful, and the police officer did not notify the Plaintiff of the blood collection measurement. This constitutes an obvious procedural violation, and thus, this is based on the pulmonary measurement result.