자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 3, 2020, at around 01:30, the Plaintiff driven a C-A-to-durbn vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.194% on the front of the Daegu-gun B apartment (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On January 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of February 14, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 28, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion only a short distance and actively cooperated in the investigation of drunk driving, and that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to work in the workplace, and that the Plaintiff supports the parent and is difficult to live, the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that is infringed compared to the public interest protected by the instant disposition is significantly excessive, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.
B. The revocation of a driver's license when a person who has obtained the first driver's license drives a drunk driving is the discretionary act of an administrative agency. However, in light of the increase of traffic accidents caused by the drunk driving and the suspicion of its result, the necessity of public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by the drunk driving should be more emphasized. The revocation of a driver's license should be more emphasized than the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, and it should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.