자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary car driving license (B); and (b) driven by the Plaintiff; (c) on February 20, 2015, at around 18:40, the Plaintiff driven Cunst Cargo Vehicles with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.167%; and (d) caused physical damage by shocking the vehicles parked on the street in the front of the Grari-si, Gyeonggi-do.
B. Accordingly, on March 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driven under influence of alcohol as above.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 8, 2015, but was dismissed on June 23, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B of Evidence Nos. 1 and 4
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion as a self-employed person requires a driver’s license to drive ready-mixed vehicles and the revocation of the driver’s license is difficult for the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood, and that the Plaintiff’s damage recovery was made upon agreement with the victim of the traffic accident, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s discretion was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and thus constitutes an abuse
B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.
Supreme Court Decision 2007No. 27.12