자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 13, 2016, the instant disposition was revoked as of February 5, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s first, second, second, and second-class motor vehicle driver’s license (license number D) for the first, second-class, second-class, and second-class motor vehicle driver’s license (license number D) of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the third-class motor vehicle in front of Busan-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul-gu, under the influence of alcohol content 0.13% ( blood collection and the application of the Ba mark) under the influence of alcohol on December 13, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was at the time, while moving 50 meters of a vehicle installed on the road after drinking with his business partners’ employees and alcohol to a neighboring apartment parking lot. In the case of the Plaintiff, drinking driving was discovered. In the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s drinking test time (round 00:26, Dec. 13, 2016) was 90 minutes of the last drinking time (round 23:20, Dec. 12, 2016) due to the Plaintiff’s drinking alcohol test time, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a rise period. In such a case, even if the above mark formula should not be applied, the Defendant erred by applying the above mark formula.
However, even if the plaintiff acquired a driver's license in 2005 and did not have any history of traffic offense except speed violation, the drinking driving is a simple driving without an accident, and the plaintiff is providing consulting services to the small-scale skin management office, and the financial debt is high, the spouse and children should be supported, and the driving is essential for the hospital treatment of the elderly and the elderly. Thus, the disposition of this case is in violation of the law that deviates from and abused the discretion of the plaintiff because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.
B. As to the allegation relating to the 1st increase in the judgment, even if there is an interval between the point of drinking alcohol driving and the point of measuring the blood alcohol concentration, and if that time seems to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone is in fact unconditional.