beta
Text
1. The revocation of the driver’s license granted to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014 by the Defendant is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, which revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large, Class 1 common) as of August 14, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving a B car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.100% (hereinafter “instant car”) around July 1, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.35%.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The measurement of alcohol by the Plaintiff was conducted at the time when about 25 minutes elapsed (20:5 on July 1, 2014) from the time when alcohol was terminated (20:30 on the same day) and the blood alcohol level was 0.100%, which is the criteria for the cancellation of the driver’s license. The above measurement of alcohol level is conducted within the range of the rise of blood alcohol level, so long as the blood alcohol level is within the scope of the rise of blood alcohol level, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol level at the time of actual operation falls under the criteria for the cancellation of the driver’s license. 2) The Plaintiff is currently driving a truck, and thus, the Plaintiff’s family members have a great difficulty in living if the driver’s license is revoked, and the distance of alcohol driving is 500 meters or more, and the revocation criteria for the driver’s license is 0.100% or more.
B. First of all, the Plaintiff is disputing the grounds for the instant disposition (not less than 0.10% of blood alcohol level). Therefore, this part of the allegation should be examined first.
Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 2-3 and 3-1 and 3 of the evidence No. 2-3, the Plaintiff, alone from July 1, 2014 to July 19:30 to 20:30, 2005 on the same day, was driving the instant vehicle at approximately KRW 500 with the vehicle of this case, while driving the vehicle of this case at approximately KRW 500.