beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of October 29, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a Dworka car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.137% on the front of a sing club located in Kimcheon-si B market on August 27, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant crackdown, the Plaintiff arrived at the point where the traffic on behalf of a substitute driver was obstructed, and the substitute driver demanded to pay the fare even after receiving the fare, and went to the substitute driver and the police box. At the time, the Plaintiff was carrying the above key to lock the door of the instant vehicle before moving to the police box, but the instant disposition based on the premise that the Defendant driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was illegal, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any fact of driving the said vehicle. (2) The instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, is necessary for the Plaintiff to drive the vehicle, and the revocation of the driver’s license would seriously interfere with his livelihood; and (3) at the time of the instant crackdown, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol.
In light of the fact that there was no accident due to this, driving distance is only 2 laws, and that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is not high at the time of crackdown, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is an error of law that deviates from discretion or abused discretion due to excessive suspicion to the Plaintiff.
B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 8 as to the first argument of the first argument of this case, the plaintiff driven by a substitute driver at the time of regulating this case.