beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (as of September 23, 2016, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and Class 1 (Salvin, Salvin) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of October 8, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.126% on the shore along the 119 fire-fighting zone located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si.
On October 5, 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 November 8, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was 01:20 minutes after drinking alcohol from August 29, 2016 to around 00:50, and was 30 minutes after drinking alcohol, and was measured at 0.126% of blood alcohol level as a result of blood sampling at around 01:20. As a result, the blood alcohol level measured at the level of blood alcohol level; thus, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is higher than the blood alcohol level at the time of driving. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is less than 0.1%, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is unlikely to reach 0.1%, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is an essential situation in order to maintain the livelihood of the Plaintiff’s continuous driving, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful. (2) Since the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level is not related to the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level and the Plaintiff’s first-class and first-class ordinary driver’s license, the part of the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 9, namely, the plaintiff was found to have a drinking alcohol level around August 29, 2016 on which around 01:02, the plaintiff was found to have a drinking alcohol level at around 01:05, which was around 3 minutes after the date, and the blood alcohol level at around 0.0.