logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.12.13 2016구단682
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around 05:00 on June 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 common) as of July 19, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a private taxi with D-related equipped range under the influence of alcohol level of 0.133% under the influence of alcohol level on the roads near the C Special Metropolitan City, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 11, 2016, 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 claim on August 23, 2016.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by drinking alcohol from June 8, 2016 to around 04:30, and then drinking alcohol was measured at around 05:14. Thus, the result of the measurement of drinking alcohol conducted by the Plaintiff is measured at the rise level of blood alcohol level at the time of driving. Thus, the Plaintiff’s demand for a police officer to take a measurement of drinking alcohol at the fluence level at the time of driving, despite the Plaintiff’s demand for a police officer to take a measurement of drinking alcohol at the fluence level at the fluence level at the time of driving, the Plaintiff was taken a simple measurement of drinking alcohol at the fluence level, and the Plaintiff merely driven a short distance of about 100 meters to provide lodging at the fluence after drinking alcohol, and the instant disposition by the Plaintiff was unlawful since it was a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power in light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential to maintain his/her livelihood by continuously driving a private taxi.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff had drinking alcohol from June 8, 2016 until around 04:30 and carried on drinking alcohol at around 04:40, the blood alcohol level was measured at 05:13% as a result of a breath measuring instrument at around 05:14, after the lapse of about 34 minutes from the time the Plaintiff was driven, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was investigated by the police, and stated that the Plaintiff carried on drinking alcohol level at around 0.13% after being investigated by the police.

arrow