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 March 1, 2018, at around 01:00, the Plaintiff is driving a B-car while drinking on the front of the Haak-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong.
On the other hand, the police officer who was under drinking control failed to comply with the request for a measurement of drinking more than three times.
(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)
Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) on April 14, 2018 by applying the criteria for revocation and suspension of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the refusal to measure the alcohol of this case.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the said claim was dismissed on June 12, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not cause a traffic accident at the time of the instant case, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessarily required due to the Plaintiff’s work in an automobile agency, and the revocation of the license is difficult to support his family and maintain livelihood. The instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion
B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver's license shall be revoked in cases where a police officer fails to comply with a police officer's measurement despite the reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol, and it is evident that there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver's license to the defendant who is the disposition
Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground of the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement of this case is not an issue of abuse of discretion, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premise.
3. Conclusion.