자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) as of May 20, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a car with D 30% alcohol level under the influence of alcohol level of 0.119% in front of the Csan-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”) at around 03:30 on April 7, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a car with D 30% alcohol level.
On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 18, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant disposition was unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretion in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential and that the Plaintiff did not have the power to drive alcohol, etc. in order to gather the mother’s mother and enter the hospital for the treatment of the injury and disease of the mother.
B. The determination of today’s level of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is frequent and the result thereof is harsh, and thus, it is very important to protect the public interest from traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). In revocation of a driver’s license, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, general preventive measures should be more emphasized that should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party that would be incurred due to the revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1051, May 24, 2012). Considering that the Plaintiff’s degree of the revocation of a driver’s license falls under the criteria for revocation of a driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and that the instant disposition based on the criteria is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had an inevitable situation where the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under drinking.