beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구단952

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven approximately 100 meters on the top of the restaurant located in the Seogdong-gu, Kim Young-gu, Kim Young-si, while under the influence of alcohol 0.154% of the blood alcohol content on April 25, 2018.”

B. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on July 17, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul's statements Nos. 1, 4 through 7, 10, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged driver’s license had no record of driving or traffic accidents for 9 years, the mere drinking driver, the fact that the occupation is essential, the family’s livelihood and reflectability, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power by harshly treating it as abuse of discretionary power.

B. (1) Determination is that the public interest needs to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, because of frequent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving today's frequent and severe results, and the revocation of driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is more severe than the case of general beneficial administrative acts, unlike the case of general beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect that should prevent drinking driving rather than the disadvantage of the party due to the revocation should be emphasized. The Plaintiff's driving level constitutes the criteria for revocation of driver's license under Article 91 (1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, with the degree of the Plaintiff's driving level 0.154% of blood alcohol concentration.

(2) In addition, in full view of the fact that the inevitable circumstances in which the Plaintiff had no choice but to drive under the influence of alcohol do not peep, blood alcohol concentration, and revocation of a driver’s license is able to obtain a license again after a certain period of time, the effect of sanctions is limited to a limited period.