자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff revoked the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary car (license number: C) as of August 12, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B rocketing car volume on the road near the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, an Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol by 0.154% (the result of a smoking measurement) on the grounds that he/she was under the influence of alcohol.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made with an employee who retired from office and an agent after having a drinking place, and the Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle directly in order to park the parked place to the other place on the roadside, and the drunk driving was discovered.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff used the ordinary driving on the day and used the vicarious driving on the day, the Plaintiff is currently serving as an employee in the middle and high-ranking department, and the driver’s license is essential for local business trips, etc., and the Plaintiff is required to raise living expenses for maintaining livelihood and pay a considerable amount of debt, the instant disposition is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) Even if the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk 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 a drunk driving, and the suspicion of its result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by a drunk driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of a drunk driving should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party, unlike the revocation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act, to prevent such revocation, rather than the disadvantage of the party (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do258, Dec. 2