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 January 9, 2019, at around 02:45, the Plaintiff: (a) operated a vehicle with low-priced level on the front of the Chungcheong Budget-gun B apartment; (b) caused a traffic accident; (c) upon receiving a report, the Plaintiff was requested by a police officer to take a drinking test on the ground that he/she snicks in his/her body take a smell from the police officer called up, and refused
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
On January 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 1, class 2, and class 2) on the ground of the instant refusal to measure alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 13, 2019, but was dismissed on March 19, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 6 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is essential to operate an automobile on duty to visit a construction site to a construction business operator, and thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the driver’s license is impossible to perform its duties and is experiencing economic difficulties, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion.
B. According to Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, if a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite a reasonable ground to acknowledge that a person is under the influence of alcohol, the defendant shall revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant shall not be deemed to have a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke the license, taking into account the Plaintiff’s circumstances, etc.
On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.