Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 9, 2020, around 01:50, the Plaintiff driven C QM6 vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.096% on the front of the bus stop in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B market (hereinafter “instant drinking”). On August 7, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) on the ground of the instant drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 24, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative adjudication with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 24, 2020, but was dismissed on November 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including numbers), the whole purport of the argument of the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's ability to drive drinking is 14 years, and the plaintiff did not drive drinking thereafter; the plaintiff did not drive drinking thereafter; the plaintiff allowed a substitute engineer who did not find the vehicle at the time; the plaintiff was a civil engineer to drive drinking in this case; the plaintiff must have a driver's license for cars for local moving; the driving is an important means to maintain the family's livelihood; and the disposition of this case faces economic difficulties. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary power.

Judgment

Today, in light of the fact that there is a growing need to strictly observe the traffic laws and regulations due to the rapid increase of automobiles, the large number of driver's licenses are issued and the traffic situation is complicated, and the traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle are frequently frequently and the results are harsh, so it is necessary to strictly regulate driving of a motor vehicle, it is more necessary to realize the public interest rather than to suffer disadvantages that do not cause traffic accidents due to the cancellation of the driver's license (Supreme Court Decision 196Da1538, May 1, 1996).