자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of January 8, 2015 on the ground that, around November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a road front of the indoor sports center parking lot located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu 4-dong, in a state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.108%.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. In full view of all the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff worked in a facility construction company, such as piping and boiler, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to transport human resources and equipment; when the driver’s license is revoked, there are many difficulties in preparing the treatment costs of the wife in need of medical treatment due to the family’s livelihood and the Athram cancer; the distance from driving at the time of the instant case is short; the Plaintiff had no record of driving under the influence of alcohol prior to the instant case; and the instant disposition is in profoundly against the Plaintiff’s driving under the influence of alcohol; the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is excessively harsh and abused
B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations according to the reduction of traffic conditions is increasing as the number of vehicles rapidly increase today and the number of driver's licenses are issued in large volume. In particular, traffic accidents caused by drunk driving are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. Therefore, in the revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drunk driving, unlike the cancellation of ordinary beneficial administrative acts, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation. < Amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 27, 2007>