2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 12, 2019, at around 02:10, the Plaintiff driven C Mt Motor Vehicle Quantities while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.089% on the front of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

On December 28, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On January 15, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 21, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number), the overall purport of the pleading, and the purport of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the distance of drinking driving of this case is only 2 km, the plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation into drinking driving of this case, the plaintiff's operation of a restaurant dealing with fish and shellfish, and the driver's license is essential means to maintain his family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary authority.

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that the rapid increase of automobiles and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large quantities, and the need to strictly observe traffic regulations is growing, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequent and there are many cases where the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize public interest rather than the disadvantage suffered by the driver who did not cause a traffic accident due to the revocation of the license for the driving of a motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10812, Oct. 11, 1996).