beta
Text
1. The revocation of the driver’s license granted to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2013 by the Defendant is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. On July 3, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of August 1, 2013, on the ground that “Around 06:07 on May 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving a B-car under the influence of alcohol from the debrode distance located in Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul, 3-dong 624-19, and thus requested a police officer to take a alcohol test, but failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s driver’s license without justifiable grounds.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been driving the said vehicle by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case through a proxy driving. However, on the wind disputing with a proxy driving technician, a proxy driving engineer set up the said vehicle on the road and left the match. While the Plaintiff moved the said vehicle to a driver’s seat, it did not seem to have driven the said vehicle as it was impossible to drive the said vehicle.
Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was driving the said car while under the influence of alcohol is unlawful.
B. In light of the judgment, the reason for the disposition of this case was rejected by the police officer's request for measurement even while the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol. As such, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's actual driving under the influence of alcohol only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, and 15 (including the paper numbers) as to whether the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it. According to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was indicted for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures) against the refusal of measurement of drinking alcohol. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the first instance of June 26, 2014 (Seoul District Court 2013Da5906) including the statement of the substitute driver and witness at the time of the instant case is sufficient.