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 June 4, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol around 22:14, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the control of police officials while driving B vehicles at the front of the Songdong Park, Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Cheongju-si, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.134% as a result of the respiratory measurement conducted around 2:18 on the same day.
B. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above measurement result, measured the blood alcohol level by collecting blood while using the species of alcohol in the C Hospital emergency room at around 22:40 on the same day. As a result of the appraisal, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was measured at 0.184%.
C. On July 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on August 14, 2018.
E. On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on June 4, 2018) with the purport that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of 0.134% alcohol level” by the Cheongju District Court 2018 Goju District Court 2018Ma481, and on June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against this. However, on November 23, 2018, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal judgment by the Cheongju District Court 2018No1495, which was pending in Supreme Court Decision 2019Do8420 as of the date of appeal by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11 through 18, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the driver’s license is revoked.