자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport.
Details of the disposition
The court's explanation in this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Whether a disposition is lawful
가. 원고의 주장 원고는 마을버스 운전기사로서, 당시 대리운전시가를 호출하여 주소지인 B아파트 정문 앞 노상에 도착하자 대리운전기사를 돌려보내고 라면을 구입하기 위해 약 300m 가량 운전하다가 신호대기 중 깜빡 잠이 들었는데 누군가의 신고로 음주측정을 받게 된 것이다.
The instant disposition, which does not take into account the following: (a) the developments leading up to driving under the influence of alcohol and the blood alcohol content exceeds 0.102%, which is the standard for 0.1%; (b) when the driver’s license is revoked, the village bus driver’s occupation is lost; and (c) the above act of driving under the influence of alcohol is against the act of driving under the influence of alcohol and the full payment of fine of KRW 3,00,000, is unlawful by abusing or abusing its discretion.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver's license for driving on the ground of drinking, such as drinking, is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation and the situation where a driver's license for driving is issued in large volume accordingly, and the tendency to increase traffic accidents caused by drinking driving and its result are often involved, the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very great. Thus, when the revocation of a driver's license for driving on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to such revocation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007; 2005Da524, May 24, 2012).