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 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A driver’s license was revoked on July 27, 2017, on the following grounds: “A driver’s license was avoided while driving a B car on July 27, 2017, and at around 21:45, around 21:50, around 21:50, around 21:56, and around 22:01.”
B. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dissatisfied therewith. However, on November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 11, and 13, the purpose of all pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that all of the police officers’ demand for the measurement of alcohol was met, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the measurement of alcohol, and the Plaintiff did not intend to comply with the measurement of alcohol at the time and did not have any intention to comply with the measurement of alcohol. The grounds for disposition are not acknowledged.
Even if the grounds for disposition are recognized, the Plaintiff’s disposition in this case constitutes abuse of discretionary power when considering the fact that driving as a transit bus driver is essential for living.
B. (1) With respect to the existence of the grounds for disposition, if deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger, or if deemed necessary for the confirmation of a driver's driving under the influence of alcohol, the police officer may request the driver to take a drinking test after the drinking test, unless it is clear that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver's driving under the influence of alcohol is under the influence of alcohol, and if the driver fails to comply with it, the crime of non-compliance with the drinking test is established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do4328 Decided February 9, 2012, 2012). (B) Therefore, health class, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8 (including paper numbers), a significant fact in the court (this Court Decision 2018No403) and the entire pleadings.