자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) as of October 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A Plaintiff driven a DEX car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.103% at the front of a kindergarten located in Kimhae-si B around August 28, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.3%.”
On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on December 8, 2015.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is below 0.1% and the Plaintiff’s actual blood alcohol level at the time of driving falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license, and (b) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s actual blood alcohol level at the time of driving falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the result of a drinking test, is inappropriate, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is less than 0.05%, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving was conducted in his/her life and has no record of revocation or suspension of a driver’s license; and (c) the distance of the Plaintiff’s drunk driving is about 50 meters, the instant disposition is unlawful since
B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment Nos. 1 and the purport of the argument as a whole, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff, at around 00:30 on August 28, 2015, was taken a alcohol level of 0.103% as a result of a blood alcohol level measurement conducted by a drinking measuring instrument in the military’s place of business with water at around two minutes after the detection of drinking at around 00:30 on August 28, 2015.