자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around 23:50 on December 27, 2016, the instant disposition was issued against the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary car driver’s license (license number: E) cancelled as of February 11, 2017 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven D UA-A5 car in front of the hospital located in E in E in emuli City B while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.118% (the result of a smoking measurement).
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was discovered to a police officer who was under control while driving a mobile vehicle in order to get off another vehicle while waiting for a substitute driver after having finished a meeting at the restaurant at the time.
In addition to such detection, considering the fact that the Plaintiff had no traffic accident or alcohol driving for 21 years and 8 months since the Plaintiff acquired the driver's license in 195, the Plaintiff was in charge of supporting her spouse and two children, and served in the business team of a lighting company, and thus the driver's license is essential for commuting to and out of the workplace and out-of-the-counter business trip, and there is no low damage to the large person and the large person due to the instant drunk driving, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretion.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving is rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered differently from the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act.