logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.02.09 2016구단11745
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. At around 23:10 on January 30, 2016, the Plaintiff, holding a Class 1 large and ordinary driving license, was driving a D car on the front road located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and was under the influence of alcohol to police officials.

B. When the blood alcohol level was measured at 0.109% in the above drinking control, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first class large and ordinary driving license on March 15, 2016 on the ground of the above drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the claim was dismissed on August 23, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff alleged the non-existence of the grounds for disposition is likely to have increased the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the plaintiff's driving at the time of the actual driving until 22:58 on the day of this case. The plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration at around 23:10 on the same day was measured at 0.109% as a result of blood extraction at around 23:10 on the same day. In light of the circumstances where the blood alcohol concentration between 30:90 and 30 minutes after drinking has reached the highest level and it is known that the decrease thereafter, considering the numerical value (0.109%) measured after 39 minutes after the driving at the time of the actual driving, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the plaintiff's driving at the time of the actual driving is higher than 0.1%, so it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration has exceeded 0.1% on the part of his family members at the time of closure of his driver's license.

arrow