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 6, 2016, at around 20:57, the Plaintiff was found to have driven a B-low-income motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.073% in front of the Elderly Welfare Center located in the Gyeong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, while under the influence of alcohol level.
B. On March 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff had a record of being discovered by drinking driving more than twice in addition to drinking driving as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on April 7, 2016, but the said claim was dismissed on May 24, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 6, 2016, when the police officer controlling the non-existence of the grounds for disposition took a drinking test against the Plaintiff, the blood alcohol concentration level from the drinking measuring machine “0.047” was 0.073%. Nevertheless, the control police officer, etc. applied the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration to 0.073%. Based on this, the Plaintiff did not drive the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05% at March 6, 2016. (2) If the driver’s license was revoked as a driver living with the disabled, his family members were placed in a serious compromise of livelihood. (2) The instant disposition abused the discretionary power. The instant disposition abused the discretionary power. (3) Determination of the non-existence of the grounds for disposition was 6 through 19, the testimony and arguments of the witness C, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the witness’s testimony and the purport of the entire testimony, namely, the Plaintiff’s report on drinking alcohol level was found to be 30% of the Plaintiff’s alcohol level.