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 December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired and driven a Class 1 driver’s license (B) on December 3, 2014, and was found to have been exposed to the crackdown on the road front of the E convenience store located in Gyeonggi Macheon-si, for the purpose of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.050% around April 30, 2015, while driving a Category 1 driver’s license on April 30, 2015.
B. On August 4, 2001, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on May 26, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff had twice the record of driving under the influence of alcohol by blood alcohol level of 0.08%, and 0.186% of the blood alcohol level of 0.11 October 2013, but was under the influence of alcohol.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on June 5, 2015, but was dismissed on July 7, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) although the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was measured with 0.05%, considering that the permissible error scope of a drinking measuring instrument is 【0.05% or more, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s alcohol level was 0.05% or more, which is the minimum standard value for drinking driving. 2) When considering the fact that the Plaintiff thought and driven a drinking machine after about 12 hours from the drinking point of time, the cancellation of the driver’s license is inevitable to be dismissed from the workplace, that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level is very difficult to support his/her family members, and that there was no personal and physical damage due to the Plaintiff’s drinking driving, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff abused or abused discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6, the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was revised so that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was 0.00 g/ml as of 0.100 g/ml, taking into account that the error of the measuring device was 0.05 g/ml, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was 0.05 g/ml. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was 0.05 %. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was 0.0.